Talk:Richard Dawkins: pseudoskeptic?
From WikiSynergy
Redirects
I think having Richard Dawkins redirect to here is a bit lame, shouldn't there be an article on the man, with, let's say, a "see also"? Human 03:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- There should be. I thought I had a comment on that page saying as much, but I do not see it now. You might say it is unfair to him, really, but redirects are necessary. The real problem is that I am sure he has a fine article somewhere else, and only criticism is left to us if we are to be useful as a separate site. It is the only thing we can contribute usefully. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 04:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I still think a short, neutral article on him would do honor to this wiki. As it is, the wiki holds that all there is to say about the Professor is that he is a pseudoskeptic? I don't mind this article existing, of course, but surely name-calling is not all there is to say about him? Human 04:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, there should be. And yes, that is the kind of basic article in the way I visualize this wiki: a neutral article linked to different opinions (thought you could just do different sections). I do not have the time, I am busy somewhat in RL, and also my next project will probably be to go through SCEPCOP Vinstona's treatise, take all the points, and do small articles on them. I hope to get your advice as to how to make them skeptic-proof. Right now they have some errors (not sure how many), and can be easily attacked. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 05:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I still think a short, neutral article on him would do honor to this wiki. As it is, the wiki holds that all there is to say about the Professor is that he is a pseudoskeptic? I don't mind this article existing, of course, but surely name-calling is not all there is to say about him? Human 04:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- How about this: Dawkins, R - was a scientist at one point but gave that up many moons ago. Has written some popular books mixing quasi-scientific and philosophical speculation with basic scientific findings. Is now an evangelical atheist apparently in the conversion business. Widely regarded as a bit of an embarrassment.Green goose 12:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously a clear possibility, but perhaps a little strong on the rhetoric.--Bob M 15:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- How about a simple, basic biography, with see alsos to pages like this one, and to the hit piece that Goose wants to write without using sentences? Human 05:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is the way it is supposed to work, Human, but he has a bio on Wikipedia, so why would we do more than a really basic introduction? The only interesting thing we can do is the controversy. So yes, a basic bio, then links to the part we specialize in. Now, bios of fringe proponents... I have seen those on Wikipedia which are Skeptic's Dictionary with only a few words changed. We might try to do more for them. But Dawkins is already treated well. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 05:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds like a reasonable site policy/approach to me. Although a brief bio wouldn't hurt, perhaps with a box at the top that auto-links to the WP article? I go steal the one we use at RW, but... :( Also, having the main "anchor" article provides a place to link to any and all articles here about aspects of his work/books/claims, etc. - and perhaps, also creates encouragement to write those articles. Human 02:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is the way it is supposed to work, Human, but he has a bio on Wikipedia, so why would we do more than a really basic introduction? The only interesting thing we can do is the controversy. So yes, a basic bio, then links to the part we specialize in. Now, bios of fringe proponents... I have seen those on Wikipedia which are Skeptic's Dictionary with only a few words changed. We might try to do more for them. But Dawkins is already treated well. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 05:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- How about a simple, basic biography, with see alsos to pages like this one, and to the hit piece that Goose wants to write without using sentences? Human 05:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously a clear possibility, but perhaps a little strong on the rhetoric.--Bob M 15:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- How about this: Dawkins, R - was a scientist at one point but gave that up many moons ago. Has written some popular books mixing quasi-scientific and philosophical speculation with basic scientific findings. Is now an evangelical atheist apparently in the conversion business. Widely regarded as a bit of an embarrassment.Green goose 12:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Questions for Dawkins
So God does not exist?
How do you know God does not exist?
What happens when we die?
Can we not know what happens when we die? /// unsigned by Wikademia
