tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1008076010301095723..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Good Science Writers: Richard DawkinsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55333417390365846712008-07-24T09:39:00.000-04:002008-07-24T09:39:00.000-04:00Dr Phillip Johnson correctly says that Dawkins' bo...Dr Phillip Johnson correctly says that Dawkins' books are not primarly about science, but about atheism. <BR/><BR/>The "science" he has in there is a platform for his presentation of his worldview (atheism).Lucashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02515186017263921231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79406709336283864002008-07-24T02:49:00.000-04:002008-07-24T02:49:00.000-04:00Larry says:"Dawkins goes too far toward the simpli...Larry says:<BR/><BR/>"Dawkins goes too far toward the simplification end of the spectrum, in my opinion. Gould may err slightly in the other direction. This is why the average person finds it easy to read Dawkins but hard to read Gould."<BR/><BR/>I agree, I find Dawkins easier to read, but of course Gould is scientifically more accurate.The Key Questionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05426898630563791849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64473653803319666392008-07-23T19:52:00.000-04:002008-07-23T19:52:00.000-04:00Dawkins may be a good stylist, but his climbing Mt...Dawkins may be a good stylist, but his climbing Mt.Improbable thesis is a fantasy;<BR/>http://darwiniana.com/2008/07/23/the-eonic-effect-climbing-mt-improbable-2/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61533050682831176892008-07-23T19:45:00.000-04:002008-07-23T19:45:00.000-04:00How could I possibly be in agreement with Sanders?...How could I possibly be in agreement with Sanders? And yet, strangely enough, I find myself compelled to say "Yep, that's the way I see it, too."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86301940158677630162008-07-23T13:24:00.000-04:002008-07-23T13:24:00.000-04:00Call me scrupulous, I don't think you can talk...Call me scrupulous, I don't think you can talk about "information" the way Dawkins does.<BR/>Consider this Dawkins quote:<BR/><BR/>"What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. It is pure information. It's digital information. It's precisely the kind of information that can be translated digit for digit, byte for byte, into any other kind of information and then translated back again. This is a major revolution. I suppose it's probably "the" major revolution in the whole history of our understanding of ourselves. It's something would have boggled the mind of Darwin, and Darwin would have loved it, I'm absolutely sure"<BR/><BR/>-- Richard Dawkins, Life: A Gene-Centric View Craig Venter & Richard Dawkins: A Conversation in Munich (Moderator: John Brockman) "This event was a continuation of the Edge 'Life: What a Concept!' meeting in August, 2008." [sic]<BR/><BR/><BR/>Te fcat you can make a code, plan or blueprint using symbols to retrieve the "actual thing" does not mena that actual thing "is" encodede information, as if we were looking at a book...the fact we can write sequences onto a disk or a piece of paer to later synthesize it biochemically does not mean the DNA "is" "information.<BR/><BR/>I think there is something seriously screwed up about Dawkins way of dealing with the notion of information. .A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30762943626957046302008-07-23T07:29:00.000-04:002008-07-23T07:29:00.000-04:00Lim Leng HiongIn terms of writing style, I also pr...Lim Leng Hiong<BR/><BR/><I>In terms of writing style, I also prefer Dawkin's clear and focused approach.<BR/><BR/>I find Gould's style a bit annoying - he seems to try too hard to portray himself as a polymath.</I><BR/><BR/>I prefer Gould. His analogies are much more accurate and he addresses biological problems in a much more thorough manner. I especially like that Gould doesn't skate over the fact that biology is messy and complicated. <BR/><BR/>One of the most difficult things in science writing is deciding how much to simplify. Every simplification involves a little lie. The trick is to find the middle ground where the lies are minimized and understanding is maximized. <BR/><BR/>Dawkins goes too far toward the simplification end of the spectrum, in my opinion. Gould may err slightly in the other direction. This is why the average person finds it easy to read Dawkins but hard to read Gould.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56384747497310080062008-07-23T04:17:00.000-04:002008-07-23T04:17:00.000-04:00In terms of writing style, I also prefer Dawkin's ...In terms of writing style, I also prefer Dawkin's clear and focused approach. <BR/><BR/>I find Gould's style a bit annoying - he seems to try too hard to portray himself as a polymath.The Key Questionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05426898630563791849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49786127738695363392008-07-22T18:37:00.000-04:002008-07-22T18:37:00.000-04:00I'm enjoying it quietly off to the side as well. I...I'm enjoying it quietly off to the side as well. <BR/><BR/>I will add that Dawkins' style of writing was what first cemented my interest as an adult in painting subjects from science, particularly biology. <BR/><BR/><I>River Out of Eden</I> was the first book of his that I read, and I still can remember the marvelous feeling of, for the first time in my life, understanding how organisms evolved. I'm looking forward to picking up his new compendium.Glendon Mellowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03582347493421110738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49924273788395574852008-07-22T18:13:00.000-04:002008-07-22T18:13:00.000-04:00I keep this book as a reference when I have questi...I keep this book as a reference when I have questions about common ancestry, precisely because it is helpful to someone like myself. There may be differences between how Dawkins sees evolution and how you see it, but it was his explanations and essays on cnidarians that helped me understand Oakley's paper on opsins.<BR/><BR/>I am sure that is was due to modesty that Dawkins didn't include himself. I am enjoying this series, btw, Larry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com