Talk:Richard Dawkins: pseudoskeptic?

From WikiSynergy

[edit] 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. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 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. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 05:10, 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. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 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)

[edit] 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

(Don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps you should look at The God Delusion. I think Richard Dawkins's positions are fairly well documented. Sterile 01:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thanks. Wikademia