yes, but some academic isn't going to change that...governments don't really have a great track record of taking academia all that seriously...
Professor Nutt, for example.
(Professor Nutt, for example.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:54,
archived)
no but governments (eventually) have to take the population seriouslyand if the population decides that a country should be secular, then it is likely it will ultimately be so.
It might take a few generations though
(It might take a few generations though
Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:57,
archived)
the population needs to care enough first.without being patronising about the uneducated masses, I would hope that Dawkins will be able to make more documentaries and suchlike. His books are boring as fuck and for that reason, I think he would probably turn off a lot of people who don't already have an interest in him.
He writes in a bit of an academicy way, which is irritating, as I prefer to try to write in a more accessible way, even if its for an academic paper. For example, I think Bill Bryson's Short History of Almost Everything is well written and accessible for people not necessarily well-versed in physics and cosmos (like me)... I think the way forward for influencing collective consciousness, is for Dawkins to make some engaging, interesting documentaries which appeal to a wider cross-section and to stop writing like a smug cunt.
(He writes in a bit of an academicy way, which is irritating, as I prefer to try to write in a more accessible way, even if its for an academic paper. For example, I think Bill Bryson's Short History of Almost Everything is well written and accessible for people not necessarily well-versed in physics and cosmos (like me)... I think the way forward for influencing collective consciousness, is for Dawkins to make some engaging, interesting documentaries which appeal to a wider cross-section and to stop writing like a smug cunt.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:08,
archived)
I agree with all of thisbut if Dawkins can influence others then they can perhaps try to educate the masses in a more accessible way
( Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:15,
archived)
yes, I agree with that too.perhaps it's a change that ought to happen in scientific/academic writing, that people need to stop using hoity-toity exclusive language just for the sake of it, so that more people (or even people other than themselves) can understand what they're on about.
I saw a presentation from a youngish professor on the importance of this, and it was most enjoyable, although the old guys in the crowd ripped him a brand new arse. The point is really, that academia is pointless if only academics can understand what it's all about.
(I saw a presentation from a youngish professor on the importance of this, and it was most enjoyable, although the old guys in the crowd ripped him a brand new arse. The point is really, that academia is pointless if only academics can understand what it's all about.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:25,
archived)
I agree with all of this.*picks pint back up*
( Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:45,
archived)
*grunts*and if Dawkins should then turn arahnd to me, trying to tell me that what I fink has such a high probability to be wrong as would render the likelihood of it being correct as negligible I should say: "OI! DAWKINS! NOOOOOOOOOO! YOU ARE NOT THE MESSIAH OF ATHEISM AND RATIONAL THOUGHT! YOU CANNOT MAKE AN ORGANISED GROUP OF ATHEISTS, BUT I WOULD PERHAPS BE PERSUADED TO LET YOU TAKE MY MOTHER OUT FOR A DRINK IF SHE HAPPENED TO BE SINGLE!"
( drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:51,
archived)