A few weeks ago, Nicholas Wade wrote a terrible review of Dawkins' latest book (it wasn't a negative review, but it just weirdly spun off into some half-baked philosophy of science).
Now the poor guy has been publicly spanked. The NY Times published short letters of rebuttal from Dan Dennett and Philip Kitcher, and then published online another dozen letters. That last link is more of a mixed bag, with some good replies and some strangely skewed ones…but it's all fun anyway.
Unfortunately, all the letters are necessarily short. This kind of corrective actually needs some longer discussion.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
This blog has been a little quiet over the last few days, but I was simply having too much fun at the Science Online '09 conference to find the time to sit down and blog. I got to meet some of my favorite bloggers, too many to mention them all here (I would undoubtedly forget some if I tried to…
I thought Beyond Belief II was an excellent, stimulating, provocative meeting, but I'm somewhat discouraged about writing it up in detail because everything was taped and will be available on the web very soon … so I don't want to be entirely superfluous. I've already described the first day,…
Update: welcome Consumerist readers! While I use my own experience to illustrate concerns about third-party online merchants, this post is mainly about the bigger long-term informational problems I see with reputation, reliability, and online communities. Please feel free to weigh in!
A few weeks…
As I've argued, one of the reasons I find the New Atheist PR campaign so troubling is that it is has radicalized a movement that feeds on anger and fear and that offers little more than complaints and attacks. New Atheism turns on a binary discourse of us vs. them. In the rhetoric of the New…