Posted on 05/05/2008 7:59:31 AM PDT by KarinG1
Ohhhh. One of those objective observers.
I’m not sure there ARE any objective observers.
susie
That tells me all I really need to know about Derbyshire and his mindset, about any subject.
Berlinski never claimed to be an objective observer.
He points out in his article that he appeared in the film Derbyshire trashed without seeing and that he is a member of the Discovery Institute - one of those described by Derbyshire as an "eccentric non-Christian crank."
Would you assert that Derbyshire is an "objective observer"?
Berlinski is an excellent writer, in my opinion. I read his book a couple of weeks ago. You’ll notice, in this article, that he never splits an infinitive.
"This is because they seriously overestimated their own ability to think nimbly before a camera."
Beautiful!
It takes real skill consistently to use correct grammar without sounding like a cluck :-).
What’s the source of your tagline?
Exactly. If Dawkins was duped, it was only by his own intellectual incapacities.
If Derbyshire is an atheist it explains the shrill, hysterical tone of his column.
It was reputed said by Sergeant Henry Gallagher, B Company 2nd/24th Warwickshire Regiment of Foot, Her Majesty's Royal Infantry, as the Battle of Rorke's Drift began, when over 10,000 Zulu impi descended on the compound defended by around 100 British soldiers.
Horribly politically incorrect, I know, but then again, so am I.
Berlinski is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture
He is one of the creators of the movie. It’s tanking and he is whining. You haven’t heard from Ben Stein.
As to the copyright infringements. If they don’t settle, then I’ll believe they didn’t need permission.
Berlinski’s radical and often wrong-headed skepticism represents an ascendant style in the popular debate over American science: Like the recent crop of global-warming skeptics, AIDS denialists, and biotech activists, Berlinski uses doubt as a weapon against the academy—he’s more concerned with what we don’t know than what we do. He uses uncertainty to challenge the scientific consensus; he points to the evidence that isn’t there and seeks out the things that can’t be proved. In its extreme and ideological form, this contrarian approach to science can turn into a form of paranoia—a state of permanent suspicion and outrage. But Berlinski is hardly a victim of the style. He’s merely its most methodical practitioner.
Thanks, I was sure it sounded familiar. It’s sad that it should be politically incorrect to observe that Africans are black, though.
“Objective observer” is an oxymoron.
While my reservations about the presentation remain, here is another view on the film.
I think the whole point of the article, and possibly the movie (which I have yet to see, I’m waiting for it to come out on dvd), is that things we don’t know should remain open to debate and investigation. Consensus isn’t the same thing as factual knowledge. Throughout history there has been generally accepted wisdom that was wrong. History repeats. It always has.
As far as the lawsuits, so far all we know for sure is that the people who filed the lawsuits failed to convince a judge to preempt the movie release, as they had requested.
Whether more will happen remains to be seen.
The initial lawsuits did not ask for payment — they said there would be no permission, and asked that the film not be released.
He uses uncertainty to challenge the scientific consensus ...
One of the things Mr. Berlinski's book demonstrated is that the "scientific consensus" regarding fundamental facts about the universe doesn't really exist. Scientists theorize all kinds of different and contradictory things, but proving or observing them to be true is a different matter.
Plenty of sane, intelligent and educated people - with a doctor's note, IQ and SAT scores, and college degrees to prove it, Mr. Harris - find much of what scientists say on these topics to be unpersuasive. "This doesn't make any sense, and not only that, you can prove any of it, so why should I believe you, instead of the equally 'scientific' guy with a totally different theory. Why should I believe either one of you?" I suppose I'm radically skeptical, too. This might impress my kids ...
Nertz. “CAN’T prove ...”
Back to the kitchen. I probably split an infinitive, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.