Talk:Richard Dawkins

Automated peer review

Please remember to run this every several edits: tools:~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:Richard_Dawkins At this point, it only complains about American and British English spelling differences and the standard copyedit reminder.--Livingrm (talk)

The Ratio Illusion.

I'm removing a paragraph on The Ratio Illusion by Falk Quest. I don't see any evidence that the book is notable enough to be worth a mention - plenty of people disagree with Dawkins about plenty of things, but not all are noted enough to include in the article. Even if the book is worth mentioning, the present summary went into too much detail which wasn't actually relevant to Dawkins, in my opinion. Also, I found it rather hard to understand what was being said - what are "illogic experiments", "human ratio" and "intuitional atrophy", for instance?

Finally, I note that the paragraph was added by Falk55 (talk · contribs). I don't know if that account belongs to Quest, but if it does then writing about his book would constitute a conflict of interest and should be avoided. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my attempt to remove the paragraph edit conflicted with its removal by Hadrian89 (talk · contribs). I hadn't realised this stuff had been added and removed before. I second Hadrian89's request for Falk to discuss it here before trying to reinstate it again. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Richard Dawkins entry is quite a mess. I agree that too much detailed criticism about one of Richard Dawkin's most successful books would better be placed under The God Delusion, however, there is already a wealth of unsorted discussion about this book under Richard Dawkins. It seems arbitrary to 'allow' some criticism and remove the other (BTW Olaf Davis, 'human ratio' means human ratio, an example for an 'illogic experiment' has been linked - have a look - , and 'intuitional atrophy' means a low amount of intuition. If you stumble here, how do you deal with ‘Stephen Jay Gould's principle of nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA)' mentioned in the article ?) I would recommend to sort criticism on the book out in a few categories and relocate the entire discussion about the book to The God Delusion. I volunteer (hesitantly. Will take me hours).Falk55 (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't looked in detail at all the bits of criticism included in the article. On a brief re-reading though it seems that most of the critics quoted or mentioned are reasonably well-known scientists, theologians or public figures of some sort: as far as I know, Quest is not. Still, if there are other bits of criticism you feel don't belong here I'm happy to discuss them here with a view to removal or transferral to other articles.

As to the specific phrases: If I weren't already acquainted with the phrase NOMA (which, as it happens, I was) I could have followed the link to its article and learned about it, but that's not the case with the examples I cite above. An example of an 'illogic experiment' was given but without any indication of what makes it an example, or what the phrase means; the linked page doesn't use it and I've never heard the experiment described as such. Similarly the explanation "'human ratio' means human ratio" does not especially enlighten me: I know what both those words mean, but can't really think what the phrase could be getting at. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with Olaf. For starters, the terminology introduced is unorthodox and, frankly, bizarre. What on Earth is the "human ratio"? Furthermore, leaving aside WP:COI (does Falk55 = Falk Quest?), WP:UNDUE (is this a notable viewpoint?) and WP:RS (is this view of science supported by any science?), I don't understand why Dawkins is specifically targeted with this material. It seemingly slants itself against mainstream science in general. Dawkins is articulating a view held by any number of other scientists - he's not its originator. --PLUMBAGO 17:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(It seems that Mr Quest is erroneously using the word 'ratio' to mean rationality/reason, not a comparison of relative magnitudes - perhaps this stems from the fact that the Latin word ratio means reason?) 163.1.150.21 (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I latterly worked out that this is what was probably being meant. It seems a rather confusing use of language though, but "confusing" is a word that seems quite widely applicable in this thread. --PLUMBAGO 15:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I'd thought of interpreting ratio as rationality but could see no reason it would be so truncated - knowledge of Latin to the rescue. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that Dawkins, unlike other scientists is rather clumsy when it comes to defend these ideas. Add to that the fact that usually manifests a petulant attitude. I some ways it seems that he is more interested in lighting more fires than in illuminating. A simple comparison would be The Fabric of Reality. I prize you for saying "Dawkins is articulating a view held by any[a] number of other scientists" a phrase that I would thank Dawkins to use. Because not all scientists share his arguments (and I am not talking about being religious or not but the reasons for not being religious or for being atheist or for preferring the scientific method as the tool for understanding what is called reality). I think that is the reason why he is an special target. Well include also the religious fanatics which would be attacking him even if his arguments (and style) were scientifically correct. About the inclusion of The Ratio Illusion, I think it shouldn't be included here. It doesn't seem to be a well known book or at least references are needed. Abisharan (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not meant to be an arrogant question: have you ever thought what purpose people have who meditate ? Since meditation is central to buddhism-hinduism-taoism-sufism-hesychastic-christianism-many-other-isms : have you ever wondered if all these hundreds of millions might not only be goofs as Dawkins tries to put it (who, by the way, is not very scientific in equating the worst parts of the old testimony with religion) ? I give you a brief answer here, which relates both to my paragraph you erased and your points above: these people try to train a sense perception which could be called 'religious intuition' or 'religious musicality'. This 'religious intuition' has nothing in common with Santa-Claus-kind of belief and does not necessarily involve any deity (see buddhism). I have tried to argue that a similar sort of intuition, which is better investigated, acts in mastergrade extreme sports athletes. Dawkins ignores this sense, many scientists ignore it, me as a hard-core scientist ignored it for more than three decades, but it exists. Now you can go on and perpetuate this ignorance to your Wikipedia work. Or you can try to broaden your horizon to something which apparently is a need in some billion people, including many scientists. I believe criticizing Dawkins on these grounds is worth to be mentioned, either under his name or better under "God Delusion".Falk55 (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It happens, that I myself am a critic of Dawkins. I criticize, on the other hand, slightly different things. It happens that if Dawkins exposition of the alienation of religion form the grounds of science (although he is more ambitious) were done appropriately the exposition would be less hard on topics such at the one you are exposing. Starting from logic (excluded middle that he uses in the very root of the scientific question "Either God exists or it doesn't" is a learned thing. As religion as science is) That only to say one little point of a sea of sides that his exposition is missing to analyze. The thing is that none of this is the reason for the deletion of that paragraph. It doesn't matter that you are the foremost hardest-core scientist of all in any topic. If there are not reliable sources saying what you are going to add to Wikipedia then it must be removed. Take it as an axiom. Find reliable sources that corroborate that this is an important aspect to understand who is Richard Dawkins (understanding his critics is part of that) and that would have to be added here or if it is important to the book The God delusion it can be added in that article. I would be happy supporting it in that case, since I am one of those scientists that feel ashamed of calling themselves that way after reading The God delusion. And I am not even religious. Abisharan (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. With respect to your concise and plausible demand "find reliable sources" let me repeat what I said in the removed paragraph (references expanded): "In 2009, Falk Quest challenged Dawkins' a priori claim that rationality is a perfect tool to fathom 'reality'< ref >Quest, Falk (2009). The Ratio Illusion. Norderstedt: BoD. p. 224. ISBN 9-783839-1-139066. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)< /ref >. He argues that even within the realm of science illogic experiments like the double slit experiment and other quantum phenomena demonstrate the limits of human ratio. Another example are mastergrade extreme sports athletes like huge wave surfers, steep hill ski racers and ice waterfall or mountain climbers, who report that in dangerous situations rational thinking has to be abandoned and intuitive acting ("flow") completely takes over < ref >Coffey, Maria (2008). Explorers of the infinite. London: Penguin Books. p. 289. ISBN 978-1-58542-651-5.< /ref >. If more university post-graduates are religious than undergraduates < ref >Where do atheists do come from?, New Scientist (2010) March 5, 26-27< /ref > - which retaliates Dawkins' underlying perception that religiosity is fools matter - and if intuition can become so powerful a tool, Falk Quest asks, could not an as yet uninvestigated "revelational intuition" act in mastergrade religious performers, in saints, mystics, yogis and religious founders, and atheism be a product of intuitional atrophy ?" Although I now see that this comment would be better placed under The God Delusion, and there is some terseness ('intuitive atrophy') : there is no lack of references here; FYI, the references section in "The Ratio Illusion" goes over 3 small-letter font pages. Having said that, let me offer again to re-write the section "Critical reception" in the Wikipedia entry The God Delusion by trying to categorize the main criticisms. This will require substantial effort, so take it or leave it. Falk55 (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

← How's about we leave it? Out of the article that is. It sounds, at best, like you're just describing the sort of "in-the-zone" thinking that works well for sports, or other activities that require fast decision making about rather limited situations. If you can find somewhere that Dawkins specifically states that careful, rational thinking is superior to all other forms of "thinking" when under the extreme time pressures that occur in instinctive, reaction-testing situations, then you might just about have a point. And your use of quantum mechanics here is simply ridiculous — what on Earth has the behaviour of entities from particle physics got to do with the "human ratio"? And what exactly do you mean by "human ratio" and "intuitional atrophy" anyway? These sound like concepts invented for this book which have no currency outside of it (Google agrees).

Finally, can you please clarify if you (Falk55) are, or are closely tied to, Falk Quest? If so, you might perhaps consider reading WP:COI for guidance. --PLUMBAGO 14:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• (to Falk55) There is a slight difference between the references provided and the ones needed. You need to prove the claim that that is relevant. Imagine that, I don't know, gravitation law was just discovered. You will not be able to use as a only supporting reference the works of Newton. You will need (also) the Washington Post (for example) saying that what Newton is saying is cool, or important. And there are statements there that I have little hope that you will find supported in such a way. For example, "ilogic experiments like the double slit experiment and other quantum phenomena demonstrate the limits of human ratio." I myself see no proof of limitation of logic there, or of ratio, but of intuition. The thing about extreme sports is more interesting. But still is a bad proof of anything. It is similar to saying that the incapacity of quantum mechanics of predicting social revolutions proves its limitations. Again if you find secondary reliable sources for whatever thing you want to say you will be able to put it in Wikipedia. I personally have don't think that will be the case with these ideas. I don't think they are in the right track. But good luck. Abisharan (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree fully with Plumbago. Also, NB this post at The God Delusion's talk page. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree with what seems to be presenting itself as a consensus. As for your offer to tidy the criticisms, Falk, I for one am happy for you to do so: I ask only that you post your proposed changes here first - or at least start a thread along the lines of "I've made this change, what do you chaps think of it?" - to make it easier for us to comment on them. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Falk55 obviously is Falk Quest. With respect to conflict of interest I have commented before , see User_talk:Old_Moonraker bottom. I may add that I find at Wikipedia:COI the following: "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article" and "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable". I would propose you exchange 'notable' by 'disclosed', because what is notable ? From Olaf's comment above one can get the impression that only celebrities are notable (to take an extreme example, contributions from a low IQ former football star accused or murder would qualify), while specialists unknown to the public are not. A better way to judge qualification is the impact factor of the scientific journal which is cited, at least that's how it goes in biology, physics, chemistry and medicine. Self-citation, BTW, is neither prohibited nor the exception in scientific publications, but the rule. Abisharan, take any Wikipedia entry in biology and you find plenty original literature cited. Obviously there is no requirement to be backed-up by a Washington Post layman. And that is the correct scientific attitude. Let me elaborate, because this to my surprise caused confusion, on the quantum thing. It has been shown in neurobiology and psychology that under certain conditions our senses or memories or logical reasoning may fail miserably. There are several examples in my book, more in the books of Mlodinow and the Kazans and many others, all compilations of huge piles of scientific publications. It has been shown that our "common sense understanding" or "everyday ratio" can fail miserably, again illustrated by piles of literature. This failure can be pinpointed by quantum phenomena. While we "understand" that an apple falls down to earth or it hurts after burning or why we stop before the red traffic light, humans cannot "understand" the outcome of the double slit experiment or how each of three quarks making up the proton can be heavier than the proton (except indirectly by mathematical equations) or how a 4D-cube feels in ones hand. Our brain did not deal with those things during 100000 years running after the mammoth. We cannot "understand" what happens during the big bang or inside a black hole. Dawkins' (and a vast majority of scientist's) premise that rationality is a tool which can "fathom" reality always and forever is just plain wrong. Quantum physicists have struggled with this since hundred years and the impression there might be a reality "behind" the reality approachable by our senses is gaining momentum (see Zeilinger, Penrose, Bitbol, many others). Here comes the intuition. Rational intelligence (IQ) is widely distributed following a gaussian distribution. Assume the following. There is another "tool" to understand our world and act in it called intuition. To empower this tool methods have been laid out over 3000 years of asian religious scriptures. The distribution of this tool, presumably, is not gaussian but biased towards low or no intuitional power in most of us, great intuitional power in few mastergrade sports athletes, artists, scientists but limited to particular trained situations, and immense intuitional power in very few mystics, saints and religious founders of all centuries. Notice that up to this point no God is in the game. Dawkins et al. blind out a potentially important human capability to access the world. Rather than blinding it out we should investigate this sense. A "religion is dangerous" attitude fuelled simply by disputable interpretations of the christian church is just no good science. Olaf, I am still not sure whether I may steel additional hours from my children, but when I do I place the draft here or at the God Delusion's talk page first, no problem. And I would be happy to disclose the authorship. Falk55 (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NB defines what Wikipedia considers to be a "notable book". Your book appears to be self-published and sold through a service called "Books on Demand", and I don't see that it meets basic notability requirements. Given that you're only quoting your own rebuttal of Dawkins and questions towards him (rather than a piece of research or data which doesn't exist in any other citable sources), this doesn't seem like a particularly useful piece of self-citation. --McGeddon (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you guys cannot judge each Wikipedia contribution by expert knowledge and thus have to stick to some formal criteria. I also understand that you tend to be picky because likely you are flooded by crap. But in all your honorable guardian work you should be well aware that WP:NB criteria are fuzzy at best, to the extend that they resort to "common sense should prevail", and unconvincing at worst. According to these criteria Lothar Matthäus' (german soccer player) "Mein Tagebuch" (my diary) qualifies while a habilitation script highly cited in specialized journals would not. Please recognize that the qualification of a scientist can be easily estimated by very few hard criteria: list of publications together with journals impact factors and citation index, i.e. how often one is cited by others - you don't get a job without those numbers in good shape. With respect to BoD: I guess that there are very few if any good books published by BoD, yet I have decided, other than with book manuscripts before, to go for Bod because I can implement corrections, additions, revisions very quickly and print quality is excellent. If all what has been said before still leaves you with the impression that I am only quoting myself I cannot help you.Falk55 (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• The example of the Washington post was clearly to convey the idea of being notable and well known. Also, it happens indeed that sometimes the contributions of a low IQ former football star accused or murder do qualify better for notability than the new discovery of a genius. It depends on what we are dealing with. Wikipedia does not care about the truth but about the truth that is settled, well known, accepted, notable. About the ideas that you are trying to add: The idea of the suitability of irrational thinking for some purposes is not new. Maybe you should try to use better known references than your own book. Personally I find the argument using the quantum mechanics example irrelevant to the point (and intuitively suggest me that the rest of the ideas also come weak, or flawed, or badly supported). The thing is that it only shows that there are phenomenons in nature that do not correspond to intuition but, certainly that does not imply unsuitability of rational analysis or even worst logic to study and understand those phenomenons. There is a difference between intuition and rationality and even more with logic. The example of sports is more interesting and I can add that irrational thinking is also (contradictorily) useful in areas such as mathematical research (sometimes). The two examples, nevertheless are weak. Both mechanisms are very little understood and using them as a proof of the unsuitability of rational thinking seems ungrounded. There is a simple possible answer. Rational thinking is a learned ability. Notions as simple as the axioms of propositional logic (in which we can base our rational thinking) are all learned. Using learned stuff for thinking is an slow mental process. And there it is, why relying on intuition (whatever that is) is better for the surfer. That is why I personally find those ideas a weak point, not only against whatever Dawkins is saying but, in general. Abisharan (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• I forgot to talk about the example of the quarks. That one is only there for spectacle, to dazzle, but it has even less content than the others. That counter intuitive fact only relies on the ignorance on the phenomenon and the fact that the manifestations of the consequences of energy and mass being the same thing are not an everyday experience as oppose to the additivity of mass. It only show that intuition relies on experience. It is the same if I, that have never surfed before, try to surf. I can try to use my intuition all I can and pretend to be a jedi and use the force or the flow but I will not be able to ride a wave. Not until I have passed through the experience a number of times (although I am less hopeful in my case). Abisharan (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm happy to withdraw.Falk55 (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like most of what's needs to be said has already been so above, but I just want to say thanks to Falk55 for being open about your COI (which, as you rightly say, does not mean you can't contribute in the area - it's just helpful to other editors to understand your involvement) and taking criticism positively. If you do decide to rewrite the section I look forward to reading it. Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

New...?

Could we add something about this http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3951? Richard Dawkins is supportive of animal rights, and has interviewed a prominent animal rights activist about it, that seems notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RememberingLife (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

There are some awful spelling errors that need correcting unless they are British spellings? I can't fix it until I get to my 10 posts since this is locked.

Professor314 (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENGVAR. We never change the spelling style of an established article, and generally an article like this (British subject) should use British spelling. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Professor314, feel free to list them here and I or someone else can fix any which are errors and not British spelling. 79.123.71.131 (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted to earlier version?

Was this edit by new user Heavyleaks actually a revert to an earlier version of the article? Although the edit summary was "use numerical dates in the citations and sort out some sections", it re-adds the recently-expired protection template and appears to reintroduce a lot of sentences that crop up in old Wikipedia mirrors. I can't see an exact match in the page history, though. --McGeddon (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed and am investigating; will report here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Which Pope was Pope Nazi?

The section on Dawkins describing the Pope as "Pope Nazi" is indeed ambiguously between Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Pius XII, but it became clear later that he was actually talking about the latter as the context was the making of Saints and Pius XII was contrasted with Mary MacKillop. There was much discussion in the Australian press and the writer in the Herald Sun was critised for not retracting his comment which is the first reference in the article currently regarding this event. I tried to clarify this, using the SMH reference which talks only about Pius XII, but it needs cleaning up probably. There are lots of possible references for this, but I do not have the time right now to find them. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no point in Wikipedia describing a temporary but now resolved confusion or "ambiguity". The article need only mention which Pope he actually was criticising, not one that some people wrongly thought for a while that he might have been criticising. And I'm ambivalent about whether a sentence about whether or not the Pope actually was a Nazi is appropriate. It could be opening a can of worms that has nothing to do with the article. It would seem that mentioning the (well referenced?) criticism of Dawkins should be enough. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's one ref clarifying that it was indeed Pius [1] Hadrian89 (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the previous section. The editing currently taking place concerns information that was not present in the version prior to the edit mentioned above, and it is likely that the article will be reverted back to its former state (I would recommend that if anyone feels like doing it now). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the differences between the current version and the one Johnuniq links to in enough detail to have any strong opinion on a wholesale revert. On the whole, my feeling is that this "Pope Nazi" incident wasn't really significant enough to warrant a paragraph in the article at all: it's the kind of thing that happens with fair frequency to public figures like Dawkins, and I think we have enough examples already. Certainly if we do include it then I agree with HiLo48 that we should just say which pope he actually meant and not "he meant Benedict oh wait no he didn't". I also think saying "Pius wasn't actually a Nazi" is not necessary; perhaps something like "...referring to wartime Pope Pius XII, whose relationship to the Nazi Party has long been controversial" would be better.

As an aside, the following sentence "Prior to the same convention, he debated Australian senator Stephen Fielding, who is a new-earth creationist, on Q&A (TV program)" doesn't seem that noteworthy given the large number of people he debates (and the link to the Pope Nazi conversation is tenuous at best) so I've removed it. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with user Olaf Davis that the reference to Australian senator Stephen Fielding is a bit unnecessary in light of such frequency - I did however insert it initially on the basis that it was a rather well-documented debate which he was widely acknowledged as winning, however I retract that in light of the excellent point raised by Olaf Davis. I do believe the whole "Pope Nazi" issue should involve brief mention of the misreporting, which claimed he referred to Pope Benedict XVI and not Pope Pius XII. Nobody claims Pius had links with the Nazi Party, however some do dispute whether he exacted enough protest during the Holocaust, see Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. So Dawkins was not correct in calling him a Nazi, however it must be made clear that he was rather referring to the Holocaust controversy in which Pope Pius XII was involved; it was an offhand remark which must be understood in that context. So perhaps a better phrasing might be "...referring to wartime Pope Pius XII, whose actions during the Holocaust have been a matter of controversy." What do you think of this? Or is it better to retain the current phrasage, which pointedly explains why his terminology was a cause for controversy, as strictly speaking such a claim is factually inaccurate. Thank-you for taking the time to read through this.