Skip to main content


I get why some people don't like Dawkins, because he was outspoken about "The God delusion". That aside, Dawkins knowledge of #EvolutionaryBiology is broad.

(a note for laypeople) Dawkins kept repeating "the animal survives" misleading narrative. "Survives" = long enough, to sexually develop, & reproduce it's genes (Dawkins knows this)

Making Sense with Sam Harris: #382 — The Eye of Nature

Episode webpage: https://wakingup.libsyn.com/382-the-eye-of-nature

Media file: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/wakingup/Making_Sense_382_Richard_Dawkins_nonsubscriber.mp3?dest-id=480596

#science #evolution

in reply to ScienceCommunicator

That's not why "people" like me don't like Dawkins. And Harris for that matter. Didn't we go through this a few months ago? I'm not an expert on 'toxic people I used to respect and now don't' because I honestly have better things to do. But I believe Dawkins is a misogynist and I know that Sam Harris spreads Islamic hate. I think that you are showing your colors by promoting these guys.
in reply to Rob 🏳️‍🌈 RMiddleton.Art

Then don't reply! (Mute me!) *Some*, people don't like Dawkins because he was outspoken about, what he termed, the God delusion.

OK, you have your own personal reasons. I'm not interested in them, because, they're generally, misleading

Go after the actual misogynists. That are explicitly prejudice. In science, using technically correct terms such as "male" or "female" of a species, is not only NOT misogynistic, it's essential for, e.g., developing more precise acting medicines

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Rob 🏳️‍🌈 RMiddleton.Art

No. I have never heard, during a conversation (so, not an out-take of a conversation, intentionally taken out of context), Sam spread anything that could be misinterpreted as "hate speech" (although, he does get quite explicitly annoyed at Trump) He obviously speaks out against draconian practice's, religious or not.
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Rob 🏳️‍🌈 RMiddleton.Art

I think that certain people have a personal vendetta against people that, for example, are critical of certain draconian beliefs & practice's.
So, they try & slander, spread lies about certain people such as Harris & Dawkins. And, some folk believe that propaganda.

You have stated slander against Dawkins & Harris (prehaps u believe it)

The ability to take criticism well depends mostly on how secure we feel about ourselves (including personal beliefs) https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201110/the-narcissists-dilemma-they-can-dish-it-out

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to ScienceCommunicator

I simply wanted you (and fellow fediverse folk) to know that many people dislike Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, for reasons different than the reason you stated. Apparently you already knew. Maybe I inspired someone else to do a search. Surely we are all free to make up our own minds.

Good on you for researching narcissism. Seems a wise precaution for someone who triply responds to one dose of criticism.

in reply to Rob 🏳️‍🌈 RMiddleton.Art

More misleading rhetoric. I responded calmly. I mean, (hehe), where have you personally criticised me?

Your mind, & your style of communication doesn't align with mine.

However, if, for example, l heard Sam say a blatantly misogynist belief, as if it were OK to believe it, IN his podcasts, that would be the last making sense podcast l listened to.

Basically, l take Sam's words in his podcasts, as evidence for or against something, more than what rhetoric you write here.

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Rob 🏳️‍🌈 RMiddleton.Art

Some people are not interested in the truth (e.g., in-group V out-group bias)

You have stated "that Sam Harris spreads Islamic hate"

I have stated that that is slander (not the truth)

The reason why I know that Sam Harris doesn't have Islamophobia, is because I've listened to ALL of have Sam's 'Making sense' podcasts. When he speaks out against "Islam", for example, he specifically condemns 'deviants' that take part in acts of violence \ cruelty in the name (shame) of Islam

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Rob 🏳️‍🌈 RMiddleton.Art

A few questions, if you'd be so bold

Do you agree, or disagree, with the following sentences?

1. It's OK to speak out against the people that excuse, advocate or take part in violence, in the name of a religion

2. Trans rights are to be respectfully considered as far as a persons mental health is concerned. But, medically, there are some differences between male & female anatomy \ physiology

3. "Men's" rights, "Trans" rights & "Women's " rights, are all equally human rights

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Rob 🏳️‍🌈 RMiddleton.Art

A more direct question, that is related.

4. If for example, Isaac Newton had some misogynist personal beliefs, would you deny the #science of Newtonian #physics?

Can you separate the "man" from the science? Considering that physics isn't specifically the study of "man" (that's biology, anatomy, physiology, psychology, etc). Physics is the study of all objective reality.

Dawkins isn't sexist, in that he doesn't believe males are superior. He is an excellent biologist

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to ScienceCommunicator

I am not a @ScienceCommunicator I am an artist. I set my toots to public because I am an artist. You posted on Richard Dawkins & Sam Harris. I replied that I didn't like them, a decision I made years ago based on information I had at the time & I no longer retain. I decided then that I had many other fine folks to focus my limited interest on. I'm not currently willing to reconsider past-me's decision. I'm worried that you may feel insulted or excited for Twitter-style debate 1/
in reply to Rob 🏳️‍🌈 RMiddleton.Art

2/ It wasn't my intention to insult you or begin an exhaustive debate. We all have limited time & interests. I've unfollowed you & you feel free to share Sam Harris's every podcast with no concern of a comment from me. Umpteen toots ago you said that you & I have different brains & speaking modes. I agree. I assure you the only emotion I'm feeling is amusement. Again I worry you might be quite upset.

I skimmed your questions and will answer the one I want

in reply to Rob 🏳️‍🌈 RMiddleton.Art

/3
I can separate "the science from the man" as you say. There are a great many notable figures whom I find odious yet whose work I appreciate. I said I'm an artist! And I'm an American. I loathe every one of my country's "founding fathers" while supporting their republic. Thing is, I do not need to feel an emotion, positive or negative, about people I don't live with. That's a waste of energy. My time is limited. I do what I like.
in reply to Rob 🏳️‍🌈 RMiddleton.Art

@RMiddleton

Sure, but if you reply to my posts and spread, what I think is misinformation, I will counter that with evidence (e.g., anyone that listened to Sam's making sense podcast, would understand that Sam isn't Islamophobic)

in reply to Rob 🏳️‍🌈 RMiddleton.Art

You have not insulted me. But you have spread misinformation about Sam's & Richard's characters. IF, you know it's misinformation__that would be slander.

IF

Its common for folk that do not like people, to not care about the truth, when they spread malicious gossip about them. That can be simply folk that "haven't got the time" (can't be bothered), aren't motivated, to find out the truth of the matter (e.g., they don't listen to 'The Making sense' podcast, but have "opinions")

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Rob 🏳️‍🌈 RMiddleton.Art

It's, of course, OK for you to not personally want to listen to Sam's 'Making sense' podcast or Richard Dawkins knowledge on evolutionary biology. But, of course, that's different than spreading unjustified criticisms about people. Whilst I respect S. Harris's & R. Dawkin's science knowledge, we'd certainly disagree on some subjects related to politics and, even more so on the politics \ economics related to mitigating #ClimateChange
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Rob 🏳️‍🌈 RMiddleton.Art

FYI, l'm both a #science & #art enthusiast. Although, science often shows that art can be quantified. For example, whilst a guitar player (subject \ object) may think of them self as an artist (musician), the guitar \ strings (object) vibrate at quantifiable frequencies. Music theory is computational, not art. But, that doesn't take anything away from the music (quite the opposite. Knowledge widens our abilities)
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)