Dawkins, Hussein, and ALF
by machtHere is an article by Dawkins where he writes about the execution of Saddam Hussein (HT: Chris at Mixing Memory). In it, Dawkins writes that the execution of Hussein was an act of vandalism.
Richard Dawkins wrote:
"Hussein is not in the same league as Hitler, but, nevertheless, in a small way his execution represents a wanton and vandalistic destruction of important research data." (my emphasis)
As Chris points out, this is scientism run rampant. Note that Dawkins' concern isn't the "destruction of a human life," it is the "destruction of important research data." To Dawkins, Saddam Hussein's worth, if he had any, was that of a lab rat, not of a human being.
But the more important thing to point out is that Dawkins still, as far as I know, hasn't spoken out yet on some very real vandalism that has occurred on his own campus, Oxford University. We've written quite a bit about the ALF here at TT, if only to point out the inconsistencies that people like Dawkins have with regard to what they view as real "threats" to science. Surely the vandalism and scare-mongering tactics of groups like the ALF are at least as dangerous to science as ID is. I admit that it is very possible that Dawkins is afraid to speak out against the ALF, given the threats they have made against everybody associated with Oxford. I wouldn't blame him if that were the case. But there are real threats and there is threatiness and the fact that Dawkins can speak out against ID without fear of his life suggests that ID falls in the latter category.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Macht - you said:-
But you seem to have missed the opening of the piece:
THE OBVIOUS objections to the execution of Saddam Hussein are valid and well aired. His death will provoke violent strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and between Iraqis in general and the American occupation forces. This was an opportunity to set a good example of civilized behavior in dealing with a barbarically uncivilized man. In any case, revenge is an ignoble motive. If President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are eventually put on trial for war crimes, I shall not be among those pressing for them to be hanged.
But I want to add another and less obvious objection: Hussein's mind would have been a unique resource for historical, political and psychological research, a resource that is now forever unavailable to scholars.
You may disagree with Richard Dawkins' views generally; you may disagree specifically with him that study of Saddam Hussein might have produced some insights into human history, politics and psychology. What you cannot honestly do is claim that Dawkins is solely so interested - and you did. A small retraction is perhaps in order?
Comment by Robin Levett — January 5, 2007 @ 6:37 am
January 5th, 2007 at 6:54 am
I don't see a need for a retraction. Not once did Dawkins say that Hussein was a human being and not a lab rat. Throughout the whole piece he treated him as one. Even his "obvious" objection his death seems to be instrumental - his death will promote strife between different factions of Muslims and between Iraqis in general.
And, no, I don't disagree with Dawkins that Hussein might have produced some insights in to history and psychology and such. I never said nor implied that. He most likely could have had great value to research.
Comment by macht — January 5, 2007 @ 6:54 am
January 5th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Of course there is no need for any retraction. Macht puts his finger on another glaring inconsistency in Dawkins' approach. We now know that Dawkins is capable of using the mainstream media to criticize the "wanton and vandalistic destruction of important research data." Thus his continued silence about the animal rights movement becomes even more problematic. What explains his continued silence about the animal rights movement? Perhaps Robin can enlighten us? Perhaps another Dawkins' fan can enlighten us?
Dawkins starts off 2007 as he started off 2006: with a subtle appeal to the Clockwork Orange approach to human behavior. And once again, he uses Science as his shield. Look, Dawkins hates Bush and Blair, opposed the war in Iraq, and opposes capital punishment. That's where he is coming from. But instead of addressing these issues head on, he dons the white lab coat to make it appear is if the Ambassador of Science is sincerely concerned about the loss of research data. Yeah, right.
I know, I know. When the lead propagandist for a new movement writes an opinion piece for the LA Times about a major international story, we here at TT are guilty of "obsessing" about Dawkins if we notice it. Shame on you, macht.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2007 @ 10:01 am
January 5th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Macht - you said:
Not once throughout your whole reply did you say that Dawkins was a human being and not a lab rat; so what?
As for your claim that he "treated [Saddam] as one in the piece you quoted; how so? He pointed out that Saddam could have had great value to research, a point on which you agree. Are you suggesting that he implies that Saddam's co-operation/consent would not have been required - that he could have been "studied" willy-nilly? I cannot see that anywhere in the piece you link to.
The "obvious" objections cited by Dawkins include:
This was an opportunity to set a good example of civilized behavior in dealing with a barbarically uncivilized man.
They also include (although this has been edited out of the version you link to):-
The usual arguments against the death penalty in general apply.
See the Guardian original at http://commentisfree.guardian....
Comment by Robin Levett — January 5, 2007 @ 10:03 am
January 5th, 2007 at 10:14 am
MikeGene says:
FWIW it wasn't written for the LA Times; it appears to have been "borrowed" from the Guardian, and edited, as is clear from the missing sentence mentioned in my reply above.
I do know that Dawkins has much sympathy with the concept of animal rights, given his contribution to The Great Ape project, and hence is likely to have at least reservations about primate experimentation; but, as you will of course admit if pressed, to suggest that he agrees with the ALF's methods would be a gross slander, based on what else we know about his views.
I don't know why he hasn't spoken out about the ALF, but here's a novel thought - why don't you ask him, rather than guessing?
Comment by Robin Levett — January 5, 2007 @ 10:14 am
January 5th, 2007 at 10:21 am
MikeGene said:-
This bit I didn't understand. Dawkins simply makes the point that if Saddam had been kept alive, as he would have in any event preferred given his opposition to capital punishment, then he could have given useful information. If that wasn't his point, he need not have written the piece at all. So what's your point?
Comment by Robin Levett — January 5, 2007 @ 10:21 am
January 5th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Okay, Dawkins gives 2 reasons - so as not to cause strife and to set a good example.
I've made no claim nor implied that Dawkins is suggesting he be studied "willy-nilly," without his consent. My point was that it is disturbing to view this as a vandalism of research material. When my grandma dies and we bury her body to rot for all eternity, by Dawkins definition, that is vandalism of research data. Afterall, scientists could have dissected her body and learned all types of things. That was my point - the tendency to view everything through the eyes of science is disturbing. (My other point, of course, is that Dawkins hasn't spoken up at all about a very real instance of vandalism of scientific data in his own backyard.)
Comment by macht — January 5, 2007 @ 10:22 am
January 5th, 2007 at 10:24 am
If his concern is about research data, explain his total silence about the way the animal rights movement destroys research data and hunts down those who generate research.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2007 @ 10:24 am
January 5th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Macht - you said:-
accompanying it with rolled eyes. You can't count, and/or don't consider that principled opposition to capital punishment involves treating the defendant as human.
It would be disturbing if Dawkins treated this solely as a loss of research material; but he doesn't. Again, he doesn't view this solely through the eyes of science - but he makes a point from that point of view that even you accept as valid.
Be honest, would you have been so outraged if it hadn't been Dawkins writing the column?
As for the linkage you make with the ALF - have you asked him why he doesn't speak out on the point?
Comment by Robin Levett — January 5, 2007 @ 10:43 am
January 5th, 2007 at 10:45 am
MikeGene, you said:
Ask him, why don't you?
Comment by Robin Levett — January 5, 2007 @ 10:45 am
January 5th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Robin:
We know he "has much sympathy with the concept of animal rights." He has contributed to The Great Ape project. The animal rights movement has targeted his own university and colleagues. The animal rights movement has been a big story in Britain. He has used the mainstream media to criticize the "wanton and vandalistic destruction of important research data." Yet Dawkins has remained completely silent about the animal rights movement and what it doing to science.
You write, "I don't know why he hasn't spoken out about the ALF."
It's odd that you can't come up with a plausible explanation.
Mark Frank already did this back on August 19. My replies are here .
I'm not sure why someone has to coax a reply out of Dawkins about this. If forced, I'm sure we'd get something like that apology. But I would think the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science would have found the motivation within to speak out loudly about these attacks on science and set out to educate the public about the importance of animal research in science.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2007 @ 10:50 am
January 5th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Robin: This bit I didn't understand. Dawkins simply makes the point that if Saddam had been kept alive, as he would have in any event preferred given his opposition to capital punishment,
Robin, Dawkins is irrational. He's opposed to capital punishment for Saddam Hussein (Hitler too?) but favors it for George Bush and Tony Blair. Doesn't the man get enough attention at home? Is he not like the juvenile delinquent who prefers negative attention to being ignored? Maybe he loves blog items like this one.
Comment by Bradford — January 5, 2007 @ 11:00 am
January 5th, 2007 at 11:01 am
MikeGene - you said:
Why is that? I may be British, but there are nearly 60 million of us, so I don't know everyone on these islands personally.
Because you actually want to know the reason, rather than simply using it as an opportunity to attack him?
??
And the way to find out why he has not is to ask him. The article Macht referred to appears on his blog and there is a lively thread running - if you don't have his email address, why don't you go over there and ask?
Comment by Robin Levett — January 5, 2007 @ 11:01 am
January 5th, 2007 at 11:41 am
You know, Dawkins himself would make a great research subject that could offer insights into history and psychology. Given that he's no more responsible for his actions than Saddam Hussein, and therefore no more "guilty" or "innocent" and deserving of life or death, I'd say it's an act of vandalism that he hasn't checked himself in, or been forcibly checked in by others, as a lab monkey. It would really help set a good example for others, on behalf of ALF, as well.
Comment by Deuce — January 5, 2007 @ 11:41 am
January 5th, 2007 at 11:52 am
You know, Dawkins himself would make a great research subject that could offer insights into history and psychology. Given that he's no more responsible for his actions than Saddam Hussein, and therefore no more "guilty" or "innocent" and deserving of life or death, I'd say it's an act of vandalism that he hasn't checked himself in, or been forcibly checked in by others, as a lab monkey.
Does Dawkins think Saddam was merely playing out the role dictated by his selfish genes? If so then how can one assess responsibility? Terms like responsibility are illusions in a determinstic world. As for the death penalty, on what basis could a determinist oppose it? Particularly for one who has a track record for mass murder. They shoot horses don't they?
Comment by Bradford — January 5, 2007 @ 11:52 am
January 5th, 2007 at 11:53 am
This is just Dawkins trying to get attention by being provocative. If he was really serious about this proposal, why didn't he make it when Saddam Hussein was actually alive? Of course, then he'd be required to disclose the details of this nebulous project (what's the exact nature of the research? who'd get the "honors" who'd fund it? etc.). And we all know what happens when Dawkins tries translating his "consciousness-raising" into actual policy.
Comment by Krauze — January 5, 2007 @ 11:53 am
January 5th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Put Dawkins himself and his inconistencies out of the equation for a moment. Isn't there a point to be made that it might have been better not to execute Sadaam if by keeping him alive we could have learned something about how tyranny happens and/or about the history of Iraq under his rule? I don't think that raising this, along with the consequence of increasing sectarian strife, is necessarily an example of scientism. It's rather an example of a consequentialist approach to capital punishment.
I'd see at least a couple of strong responses to this consequentialist approach. One, of course, is that it presupposes consequentialism. One might argue from a different ethical perspective that a tyrant like Sadaam should be executed regardless of ancillary consequences like a loss to historical research. And, one might argue from other non-consequentialist ethical perspectives, including some religious ones, that capital punishment should never be carried out even on a tyrant.
But even within the consequentialist perspective, it's unlikely that any major scientific or historical research benefit would have been gleaned by keeping Sadaam alive. He was a lunatic and a deranged liar. There's no reason to believe any useful information could have been gleaned from him had he been kept alive in prison.
Comment by dopderbeck — January 5, 2007 @ 11:59 am
January 5th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
dopterbeck is right. Professor Dawkins's argument is curious by its terms, because Hussein was alive and imprisoned for years before his execution. The relevant question is what marginal increase in information would have been received from him during the remaining years of his natural life. I see no reason to suppose that Hussein would have chosen to cooperate with researchers, and it certainly would have been ethically improper to coerce him to engage in such medical experiments against his will. The argument seems weak enough on its face that it does lend some support to Mike Gene's suspicion that this is a scientific veneer on a basically political question in order to garner the public deference to scientific experts.
Comment by cthomas — January 5, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Bradford - you said:
Wrong - and the proof is in the section you quoted:
See that little word "not"
Comment by Robin Levett — January 5, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Dawkins:
"Barbarically uncivilized." Blatantly redundant. Sounds like he's talking about Conan the Barbarian (who, for those not familiar with the history, is now married to Maria Shriver and is 2-term Governor of California)!
Let's do a little dictionary-surfing…
Barbarian noun
1. A person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person.
2. A person without culture, refinement, or education.
3. Foreign, alien.
4. A fierce, brutal, or cruel person.
Iraq is part of a region that anthropologists and historians call the "Cradle of Civilization." Does the cruelty of any leader toward certain of the citizens of his/her state honestly diminish the level of "civilization" otherwise present in the culture, or is it just when a nation is ruled without benefit of parliamentary procedure or open democracy that citizens of countries who do enjoy those forms of government have leave to call those 'aliens' Barbarians?
Is it because Saddam was brutal in his suppression of insurgents? Because he made second-class citizens of the majority of his people? Because he used torture against his designated enemies? Because he actually used the illegal weapons Donald Rumsfeld sold him on behalf of George Bush the Elder from bigwig arms dealers the Carlisle Group?
Sorry, but given the facts, I do not think citizens of Britain or the US have much of a leg to stand on to call Saddam a "Barbarian" or Iraq an "Uncivilized" country, given what we've been doing to it since 1991, on purpose. Death toll from the 2003 invasion is reported from academic sources to be upwards of 200,000 men, women and children (our military isn't bothering to count). Our troops used white phosphorus weapons against insurgents in Fallujah, literally melting the skin off children who just happened to be "in the way." Thousands are incarcerated at Gitmo and inside Iraq and Afghanistan for continuous torture, sans accountability. We've 'secret' torture prisons in several outside countries where even worse tortures can be inflicted without fear of law. Our own rights and freedoms have been abridged here at home using Saddam as the worst excuse I've ever encountered. And we were flat-out lied into all this from the beginning because it was always about the oil (and the trans-Afghan pipeline). Both Saddam and Osama bin Laden were our proxies just a couple of decades ago - we paid them to do dirty deeds and gave them the weapons to do it with!
Saddam's just one more petty (but more effective than what's coming next) tyrant out of the way, in the very midst of a sea of oil-soaked death. No one other than the current administrations of Britain and the US will miss him. But…
…I've just gotta ask. Who in this bloody horror could be considered "Civilized?"
[/rant]
Comment by Joy — January 5, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
See that little word "not"
Yes, Robin. I missed that. It also escapes me why Dawkins would oppose capital punishment. Does it sound too politically incorrect? Does it seem barbaric to spare the life of a mass murderer? BTW, in a politically unstable country like Iraq how could one be assured a mass murderer would remain encarcerated when the winds of political change blow?
Comment by Bradford — January 5, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
dopderbeck,
I actually think consequentialism is tied pretty closely to scientism. You may be right that it isn't directly related to scientism, though.
Comment by macht — January 5, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Robin,
Yes, but there is only one Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. What does that title mean? And the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science is part of a university that is being attacked by animal rights groups because the university is trying to build a research lab. If someone in this unique position has the time to criticize the destruction of research when it comes to another country executing a bloody tyrant, I'm not sure why he can't find it within himself to defend his own university and colleagues.
You are missing the point. No one had to coax him to get his views about child abuse and religion. No one had to coax him to get him to sign the petition. No one had to coax him into complaining about Hussein's execution. So why does he have to be coaxed to defend his own university and explain the importance of animal research?
Consider all the energy and time you have already spent today defending Dawkins on an obscure blog. It's more than Dawkins has spent defending his own university from attacks that are trying to thwart science and progress. You found it within yourself to defend Dawkins. Dawkins can't find it within himself to defend science, his university and colleagues. Go figure.
It's been my personal policy for years not to join various other blogs or forums, as I don't need to feed my cyber-addiction with more outlets. As for e-mail, I don't chase people around with e-mails, as I restrict my comments to the public sphere. Dawkins is a very public figure, leader of a movement, and has a big microphone. He is thus worthy of observation and commentary. As I showed you, one person who is friendly to Dawkins already e-mailed him about this months ago, but it looks like Dawkins never replied.
But you keep missing the point. Why does Dawkins have to be asked about this? Did he offer up his views about religion and child abuse because someone asked?
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Krauze:
This is a good point. I also don't remember Dawkins ever suggest studying Milosevic when his trial was going on.
BTW, Dawkins' main complaint of losing useful research data is also silly.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Dawkins:
I wonder if Dawkins considers the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by invaders and Saddam's henchmen over the last couple of decades to constitute "destroyed research data." Or maybe their deaths in themselves are the data for research - against Saddam, who then paid the biggest price he could have paid for the evil deeds he'd done.
Or perhaps he's just feeling the anticlimax of such a death in the face of the monumental evils conducted both on his orders and against him as excuse. I thought a lot about Hitler's evil and the pure banality of his death when I was a child learning about all this horror by questioning my godparents.
There's a seemingly grotesque disparity of 'justice' when weighing one life against hundreds of thousands (or tens of millions) of other lives. Hitler blew his own brains out in a Berlin bunker, saving everyone the trouble of hanging him for his crimes. Saddam was tried for his crimes, and hung by the succeeding government. In both cases the epitome of evil can only die once, for all the mass death he commanded or was otherwise responsible for. Just one more drop in a sea of blood.
It might have comforted my childish grasp of injustice if I'd really believed when I was 7 that Hitler was to forever suffer torment in hell while his victims enjoyed the fruits of heaven. But (despite what Dawkins & Co. keep telling us about religious child abuse), a 7-year old doesn't relate very well to esoteric concepts of eternity, either the furniture of heaven or the temperature of hell [ht: R. Neibuhr]. It's just a horrible fact about life and death on planet earth that one person can have the power to kill millions, while the millions have no power at all - so they just get to die.
Sure you can frame it in terms of heaven and hell - heaven being where the victims go to be in peace and exist in happiness after having paid for the privilege, hell being where the killers go for being so blasted evil. But they're still very abstract concepts to a child. Who is busy trying hard to figure out how the game is played and how the score is kept in THIS world.
Don't guess I ever grew out of it, since I still can't describe the furniture of heaven or the temperature of hell. And I am still amazed at the depth of human depravity. Worse, I am still disappointed by the weighted scales of human justice after more than half a century on this rock.
Saddam wasn't "research data." He was just one more evil man. If there's anything harmful in this world we're too acutely aware of, it's the human propensity for evil. What in the world would Dawkins wish to know from dissecting Saddam (dead or alive) that he didn't already know or couldn't find out by asking around?
Comment by Joy — January 5, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Quit obsessing over Dawkins, then we won't note it in the present tense. Soon, we won't note it in the past tense, either.
Those who obsess look for rationalizations for their obsessions.
Comment by edarrell — January 5, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Now that we have established that there is even more reason to wonder why Dawkins won't defend science, let's turn to his argument.
Dawkins:
Are we supposed to believe that Hussein rose to power because of his psychology? Dawkins doesn't seem to understand the basic lessons of history and social science. Yes, as he notes, there are lots of Saddams and lots of Hitlers in every society. What brings such people to power are societal forces. Does Dawkins truly think that a genetic fingerprint and analysis of blood testosterone levels is going to tell us anything useful?
Is there even reason to suspect they were truly unusual? Yes, these were bullies that won the lottery and got to be bullies on a much larger scale. But why think their brains have some unique/unusual super-bully quality? Where is the preliminary evidence that would even suggest this? The world is full of dictators as we speak. Are they all "truly unusual" apart from the fact that they are dictators?
We already have the solution that makes it "harder for men of Hitler's or Saddam Hussein's psychological types to take them over." It's called a robust democratic society that strongly affirms and protects human rights (for example, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc.). Did the USA and Britain need such research to keep a Hitler and Hussein from ruling them in the 20th century?
Is there any evidence that such information is "potentially of vital importance for our future?"
More hypocrisy. Dawkins is the same guy who abandons research, goes against intuitive common sense, and relies solely on his prejudice and preconceptions to accuse religious parents of abusing their children. This scientist needs to practice what he preaches.
Which is why it would always be shoddy science. What is a scientist really going to learn from a sample size of one and a method that can only involve interviews (and perhaps the extraction of body fluids)? Maybe Dawkins wants to measure Hussein's cranium size while he is at it?
Not at all. In fact, it's a rather stupid question. Doubt me? Have Dawkins propose his experimental design for obtaining this "valuable" information. What we have is a very poorly thought out idea. There is no reason to think research on Hussein would give us any useful scientific information. There is no proposed experimental design or clearly stated research objectives. And it seems to be research into a non-problem, as we already know how to make it "harder for men of Hitler's or Saddam Hussein's psychological types to take them over."
Only two things are noteworthy about Dawkins' argument: a) he again advocates a Clockwork Orange approach to crime and b) we now know he is willing to write about the "wanton and vandalistic destruction of important research data."
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Why is it that an IDiot like me has to teach the "pro-science" people how to think scientifically? I have already debunked this accusation once. So let's try another angle.
I did a Google search, a blog search, and a youtube search with the string, "˜Richard Dawkins.' The hits retrieved were 1,590,000 for Google, 28,983 for Technorati, and 230 for YouTube. Obviously, Dawkins is a famous guy who is talked about by thousands of people.
But let's compare. For years, the critics have been focused on William Dembski. So what happens if we do the same searches for him? Google gives us 230,000, Technorati gives us 3614, and YouTube gives us 1.
Thus, while the critics have spent more time talking about Dembski (and his blog) than we have talking about Dawkins, yet the objective data show us that Dawkins is more influential and talked about than Dembski, the "obsession" meme is refuted (unless they want to acknowledge they have an even deeper obsession with a less talked about figure).
So what's going on? I sense of certain element of desperation/nervousness among the fans of Dawkins. Over the last couple of months, they have watched IDiots like us get the better of Dawkins on several topics. If the fans had counter-arguments, they would provide them. Since they have no counter-arguments, they have resorted to psychological intimidation tactics (notice that ed speaks of "we" instead of himself). And if you remember, I noted that type C critics tend to be bullies and are about intimidation.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Mike:
If Dawkins weren't so blinded by his prejudices, he'd know that steps toward defining the psychology of evil have already been taken. Notably by recently departed M. Scott Peck in his fascinating book, People of the Lie.
From a review by Svali listed at a site that actually deals with issues of physical and psychological abuse that Dawkins pretends to be an 'expert' on (sans any psychological or other scientific evidence) -
I read this book years ago when I was working for a state-funded project dealing with at-risk and adjudicated teens and their families, and learned a lot that was actually helpful in my ability to not be overwhelmed by the conditions I was exposed to. I'd recommend it to Dawkins if he's really curious about the psychology of evil.
Even better, Peck drew his examples from among those with the psychology of evil he described that he knew from his practice (mostly court-ordered interventions for this PD, since the evil don't themselves seek psychological counseling). Less-than-national dictators - 'regular' people who just move through life leaving in their wake the physical or psychological destruction of those unfortunates they get to exert power over. Peck had an 'official' title for this evil personality disorder too…
"Malignant Narcissism."
Comment by Joy — January 5, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
MikeGene, you said:
Given his known views on animal rights, perhaps he doesn't see animal research as that important?
You accuse me of missing the point - perhaps you're the one missing the point?
The only way to find out the answer to your question is to ask - but you refuse to do so.
Comment by Robin Levett — January 5, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Mike, Macht, shame on you both! If only you had given Dawkins a chance, he could have surely dreamt up something to hedge and explain away everything he said before!
Seriously now, what's with people huffily demanding that we go to Dawkins to find out what he really thinks, every time someone comments on what he actually says? Are there any other public figures who are entitled to this ridiculous deference before anybody is allowed to criticize them? And why is it that even people who don't claim to be "new atheist" types rush to strain his words into more benign interpretations on his behalf, and complain about others being unfair because they refuse to go through the same mental gymnastics themselves? What, does Richard Dawkins need a translation manual to be understood or something? Is he speaking some idiosyncratic variation of English that most people don't know?
Comment by Deuce — January 5, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Robin:
That is precisely what makes his views on science uncredible and dishonest, he is indirectly supporting a "science stoppper" based on his own personal metaphysic.-
Comment by Guts — January 5, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
That's no way to speak about the British dialect!
Actually, that reminds me of the Colbert interview where Dawkins mentions what "we" call something or other, and Colbert's response was "Biologists or British people?"
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 5, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Hi Robin,
Okay, now that sounds like a plausible explanation. But then his understanding of science is deeply flawed and he defends science only against certain threats.
BTW, you might notice that I dealt with Dawkins' argument head-on. The notion that we can obtain useful scientific information that will help us prevent dictatorships from spawning by doing "research" on Hussein is, to put it kindly, silly.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Deuce:
I think that is a very good point. People seem to forget that Dawkins is a very public figure (and the lead propagandist for a new movement) who writes for the mainstream media and not some guy in his pajamas blogging on the internet. Imagine a Rush Limbaugh fan complaining that someone first needs to e-mail Limbaugh to more clearly see what he really thinks before "thinking the worst."
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
January 6th, 2007 at 6:14 am
Guts, you said:
Nope; ethics. If he takes the view that animal experimentation is unethical, he is applying exactly the same test as in deciding against human experimentation. Do you support experimentation upon humans without consent?
Comment by Robin Levett — January 6, 2007 @ 6:14 am
January 6th, 2007 at 6:17 am
Deuce, you said:
If you look carefully, I am "demanding" that MikeGene/Macht go to Dawkins to find out what he really thinks precisely because they have commented on what he has not said, and have asked why he has not said it.
Comment by Robin Levett — January 6, 2007 @ 6:17 am
January 6th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Robin:
His own personal ethics, yes, they call it "speciesism". Asking me about human experimentation is begging the question. It's a personal philosophy in the same vein as someone who believes that a cluster of cells and/or a fetus is human and therefore abortion and/or stem cell research is wrong, because of their religious beliefs. And in it's extreme form, it's just as, if not more, threatening to science than any kind of dangerous fundamentalism. That he rails against "absolutists" , pro-lifers and anti-stem cell research activists, but not against animal rights terrorists, the very idea that animal research must cease, despite it's track record and contributions to medical science, and that he ignores the violence perpetrated against scientists, is troubling.
Comment by Guts — January 6, 2007 @ 6:54 am
January 6th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Guts, you said:
Do you have a reason - without referencing religious or other beliefs - why animals should be treated ethically differently to humans?
If it is accepted that scientific ethics can prevent one experimenting on humans without an accusation of being anti-science, then it is up to those saying that animals are ethically different to explain why.
Comment by Robin Levett — January 6, 2007 @ 8:03 am
January 6th, 2007 at 8:12 am
The idea that they shouldn't be treated differently cannot be justified without reference to belief.
Robin, most scientists are specieists because it is just a belief, the idea that there is a moral equivalence between experimenting on animals and experimenting on humans is just a belief. I dont' even care that Dawkins might believe that, the same argument can be made about stem cells and abortion, but that he puts that above a proven track record of scientific research and contribution to medical science and that he ignores extremist attacks on scientists, and instead attacks , quite discriminately, the religious issues, is anti-religious behavior, and yet he postures like a pro-science advocate. The issue is worse, because extremists take these kind of beliefs further , they burn down labs, threaten scientists and even are incriminated in murder. Where is Dawkins's condemnation of this?
Comment by Guts — January 6, 2007 @ 8:12 am
January 6th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Anyone who's ever eaten a steak treats animals differently to humans.
Comment by Krauze — January 6, 2007 @ 9:03 am
January 6th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Guts - you said:
Really? Please think that one through. I'm having problems seeing why.
Comment by Robin Levett — January 6, 2007 @ 10:30 am
January 6th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Krauze - you said:
Indeed.
Comment by Robin Levett — January 6, 2007 @ 10:31 am
January 6th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Robin,
You keep missing the point. It is pretty clear that Dawkins does not want to talk about this subject. If he wanted to talk about it, he would have. And you keep ignoring the fact that someone friendly to Dawkins did e-mail him about this back in August and it appears Dawkins didn't want to talk about it with him either. I'm afraid you are focused on a relatively insignificant bit of trivia instead of dealing with the larger issues.
As it stands now, we're left with a very public figure and a leader of a new movement who is willing to write about the destruction of research, but not about the destruction of research at the hands of the animal rights extremists. What is odd here is that animal research has a long and proven track record of success. In fact, we could go so far as to say that almost nothing would make sense in biology without the light of animal research. On the other hand, the psychological research Dawkins' has in mind is very poorly thought-out and likely to contribute nothing to science.
In other words, Dawkins defends meaningless, potential research and won't defend important, real-world research.
Comment by MikeGene — January 6, 2007 @ 10:46 am
January 6th, 2007 at 10:48 am
And don't forget that anyone who owns a pet or takes their children to the zoo also treat animals differently than humans.
Comment by MikeGene — January 6, 2007 @ 10:48 am
January 6th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Guts:
Well stated.
Comment by MikeGene — January 6, 2007 @ 10:51 am
January 6th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
MikeGene, you said:
And this is the point you keep missing. If, as isn't unlikely given his views on "speciesism", Dawkins rules out animal research on ethical grounds, then he doesn't see prevention of animal research as "destruction of research"; just as he wouldn't see an ethics committee's refusal to permit vivisection of a human as "destruction of research".
What then is left is the illegal methods adopted by the ALF, which are not an issue for the public understanding of science. There are plenty of people around to condemn that, both people directly concerned with law and order and people who take a different ethical stance and accept animal research, without his needing to become involved.
The only way you are going to find out whether that is his position is to ask him. Instead, you attribute to him a position that he may not actually hold - that animal experimentation is a valid form of scientific research - and criticise him for not defending that position.
Comment by Robin Levett — January 6, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
January 6th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Robin,
You write, "Instead, you attribute to him a position that he may not actually hold - that animal experimentation is a valid form of scientific research - and criticise him for not defending that position."
Good point. Perhaps I am being uncharitable in assuming that he thinks animal experimentation is a valid form of scientific research. It may indeed be that he would support a ban on animal research (or at least primate research) and while I am sure he would oppose the violent methods of ALF (even PETA does that), he could very well be deeply sympathetic with their agenda. Yes, that could explain the silence and apparent inconsistency.
If so, it is very interesting to ponder where Dawkins' reason has taken him. He promotes ideas not supported by research (religious upbringing as child abuse), he defends meaningless, potential research (interviewing Hussein), and opposes a form of research that has a proven track record of generating massive amounts of knowledge about the world. I have to wonder if the words "reason" and "science" are just slogans for Dawkins.
Comment by MikeGene — January 6, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
January 6th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
MikeGene, you said:
And here you go again. Are you saying that "reason and science are just slogans for" every scientist in the world who accepts that ethics provide a bound on what research can acceptably be conducted? If not, why not?
As for the "meaningless, potential research", perhaps you could take that up with Macht, who agrees that Saddam "could have had great value to research"
Comment by Robin Levett — January 6, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
January 6th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Why don't you email him and ask him if that is his position?
Comment by macht — January 6, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
January 6th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Robin,
I think you need to deal with Guts' points above.
I've laid my arguments on the table. Thus far, I don't see any "pro-science" enthusiasts refuting them.
Comment by MikeGene — January 6, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
January 7th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Macht, you said:
I'm not the one accusing him of inconsistency (or worse) on the basis of attributing to him a position that, on the available evidence, it is somewhat more likely than not he doesn't hold.
You, on the other hand, have done so. It seems to me that if you want to make your charge stick, you need to get the evidence, not me.
Comment by Robin Levett — January 7, 2007 @ 7:56 am
January 7th, 2007 at 9:13 am
I think the available evidence, as I said, points to the fact that he is afraid to do so, not that he is against it in principle. If he were against animal testing in principle, you'd think he'd have spoken out against it. If he were afraid, you'd expect exactly what he has done - nothing.
As long as Dawkins doesn't explain why he speaks out against vandalism one form of scientific research and not another, it is a legitimate question to ask. If he wants to clear it up himself, he is free to do so. You can just view the post above as consciousness raising.
Comment by macht — January 7, 2007 @ 9:13 am
January 7th, 2007 at 9:54 am
MikeGene, you said:
I've already asked him to clarify his reasoning; he hasn't yet responded.
As I understand them, they boil down to (i) he can't be serious about it because he hasn't produced an experimental proposal (ii) we can't learn anything in particular from a sample size of one and anyway (iii) we already know all the answers so there's no need for such a study - for exampel we know that the way to prevent the rise of a dictator to power is to install a democracy.
As to (i), so what if he hasn't produced a fully worked out and costed research proposal? He doesn't need to to regret the loss of information represented by Saddam's death. As to (ii), as Dawkins says this is the nature of the beast - but any individual research subject is a sample size of 1; you'll never increase the sample size if you keep killing the research subjects before studying them.
As to (iii), perhaps some history is in order? Hitler came to power in a democracy, as did Mussolini. The problem with populist dictators is that they are popular, at least at the outset of their rule, and they therefore have a reasonable chance of success at the ballot box.
Comment by Robin Levett — January 7, 2007 @ 9:54 am
January 7th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Macht, you said:
Then I must politely disagree; the available evidence is that he opposes the "discontinuous mind" that grants rights to humans but refuses them to animals. He's even written on the subject…
Comment by Robin Levett — January 7, 2007 @ 9:58 am
January 7th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Hi Robin,
You forgot (iv) "“ Dawkins ignores the entire body of work from social scientists and instead focuses in on psychology. For example, Dawkins' writes, "Psychologists, struggling to understand how an individual human being could be so evil and so devastatingly effective at persuading others to join him, would give their eyeteeth for such a rich research subject." But this is silly. Someone like Hussein was "so devastatingly effective at persuading others to join him" in a particular social setting at a particular time. How in the world would one gather this type of information from interviewing him in a prison cell? It would be like trying to figure out why a tiger is such a good predator by observing the tiger in the zoo.
You also forgot (v). Is there any evidence to suggest that Hussein was in some way uniquely unusual?
Your point minimizes what Dawkins said and then inflates what I want. First, Dawkins is not talking about mere "information," as he has singled out a type of information as the most important: "But perhaps the most important research in which a living Saddam Hussein could have helped is psychological." Second, I don't want a "fully worked out and costed research proposal," I'd like to see the basic experimental design he has in mind. Remember that the objective of this research is to provide something that is "potentially of vital importance for our future" because it would point to "changes we could make to our political institutions that would make it harder for men of Hitler's or Hussein's psychological types to take them over." Since this is such a lofty experimental objective, Dawkins should give us some rough outline for obtaining this crucial information that has forever been lost. For example, what exactly is his testable hypothesis??
Look at it this way. Hussein is probably not the last dictator that will be captured. Don't you think Dawkins should be looking to the future and make a convincing case for studying dictators? Or was he just using this bit of current events to get some more publicity for himself?
And as I said, this is what makes Dawkins idea of scientific research shoddy science. Just what type of scientific information are you going to get from a sample size of 1? Remember, Dawkins wanted to research Hussein now; he did not argue that we should keep him alive in the hope that we could collect a sample that could eventually be researched. After all, a sample size of 3 or 4 makes for very powerful scientific research.
Indeed. So is Dawkins saying that it is the pyschology of Hitler, Mussolini, and Hussein that brought them to power and not the environmental surroundings of these men? For example, if Hussein had moved to England after turning 21, would his pyschology have enabled him to become the Dictator of England that goes to war with France? Is the only reason England has had no Hitler, Hussein, or Mussolini is because they have been lucky enough such that no one with those unusal personalities has ever been born there?
Here is the other place where Dawkins is intentionally vague. Let's join in on his magical thinking and pretend scientists develop a personality profile that is specific to dictators. So thanks to science, we now know what a would-be dictator looks like. So what is the government of England supposed to do to find the potential dictators among them? What is the government supposed to do when it finds them? Are we talking Clockwork Orange here?
Comment by MikeGene — January 7, 2007 @ 11:32 am
January 7th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Robin:
Okay, we have the following observations: a)Animals rights extremists have attacked Dawkins' university because b) the university is building a scientific research lab and c) Dawkins has said nothing.
Two hypotheses have been floated.
1. Dawkins is afraid to defend his university because the extremists might target him.
2. Dawkins is sympathetic with the cause of the extremists and has thus chosen sides.
Comment by MikeGene — January 7, 2007 @ 11:39 am
January 7th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
There is not much evidence that Hussein was "devastatingly effective at persuading others to join him." Many of Hussein's closest followers were relatives and cronies from his hometown. Others were not so much persuaded, as they were terrorized, into obediance. Hussein's "secrets of success" are not very mysterious. They've been repeatedly observed throughout history. Combine muscle and cunning with total ruthlessness and you have a recipe for a totalitarian ruler.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
January 7th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Bradford,
I agree. This is why Dawkins' "research" idea is so poorly thought out. He ignores the information that we do have in order to portray Hussein as if he was some great, valuable scientific mystery. From there, he then naively assumes that the mystery could be solved by finding some special pyschological trait. Then, once we identify this special trait, not only do we solve the mystery, but we can use this information to keep all those dictators from taking power in Britain.
If Dawkins is truly serious about this research idea, "consciousness raising" is not enough. He needs to return to this topic and more explicitly spell out his testable hypotheses and experimental designs. Otherwise, why should anyone take his argument seriously the next time a dictator is captured and sentenced?
Of course, if Krauze's hypothesis above is valid, we can predict that Dawkins will not be returning to this topic in the future.
Comment by MikeGene — January 7, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
January 7th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Another point of consideration is that Dawkins has been fairly outspoken on a lot of issues, and if he really felt strong sympathy for the ALF, he probably would've said so. So a third hypothesis might be that he doesn't really care much either way, although this may potentially be undercut if he's written about the issue already.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 7, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
January 8th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Robin:
Actually all you did was say "go think about it", and then you snipped the bulk of my post without any response. Thats not a response, and I didnt respond because there was nothing to respond to.
Comment by Guts — January 8, 2007 @ 3:08 am
January 8th, 2007 at 9:04 am
MikeGene, you said:
As to (iv); he doesn't zero in on psychology to the exclusion of the social scientists - that's why he says that "His mind would have been a unique resource for historical, political and psychological research".
As to (v); that he had a disproportionate influence on the history of the late 20th century is pretty clear; whether he was personally uniquely unusual, or whether upon study we would simply have found "the banality of evil" is surely one of the points of any such research?
Bradford and you also, with respect, miss part of his attraction to the Iraqi people. From Wikipedia:
Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
The paradox is that some of the most brutal dictators - of which Saddam was one - have also been among the most popular leaders of their countries at some point in their career; and Saddam genuinely improved the material lot of the Iraqi people generally and Iraqi women in particular - although that didn't last for reasons that seem obvious - a long, brutal war with Iran among them - but that would have been clarified by access to a co-operative Saddam. To write down his success simply to brutality is to oversimplify.
Note that I can say the above without having to produce a research grant proposal; I can be quite serious about saying that he could have been valuable to various branches of science and historiography without actually proposing to do the work myself.
Guts, you said:
My response was to the comment:
which was the crux of your post; if that isn't valid, the rest of the post was unsupported. I asked you to think it through because I was having problems seeing the logic; I rather assumed that having thought it through you would take great delight in explaining the logic to me. I was apparently wrong. In case I wasn't transparently clear, please read what I said:
as:
Bradford said:
You miss out:
3. Dawkins does not accept that animal research is a valid form of research and hence does not see that it is appropriate to speak out in defence of animal research; that would weaken any comment he makes on the topic.
We could between us produce a number of other possibilities, some or all of which are inconsistent with others. I have repeatedly said that the way to find out which is the correct position is to ask Dawkins - but none of those criticising him for what he hasn't said is willing to take that step.
Comment by Robin Levett — January 8, 2007 @ 9:04 am
January 8th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Robin:
Well, perhaps I should get a bit more specific. In his book Dawkins complains about "absolutists", how they do not bother with "slippery slope" arguments (do they suffer? do they have a nervous system ?) a fetus or a cluster of cells is human and we should not kill humans and thats that, he doesn't like this absolutist stance. The problem is that animal rights terrorists are just as absolutist, an animal deserves equal rights and if you don't agree your lab will be trashed and you should be killed. They do not bother with slippery slope arguments either. Dawkins doesn't rail against this as he does anti-abortionists. My argument is that he is doing this because he is anti-religion, not pro-consequentialist (i.e. not pro-science). The job of the holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair should be to educate the public about science and to support scientific research, not to take an absolutist position on a controversial subject and ignore the victims of ALF (his colleagues!).
As to whether one can justify that animals shouldn't be treated differently without reference to belief, of course not. Dawkins himself admits that even if human evolution is an incontrovertible/observable fact, humans could still have special status because they are more capable of suffering anguish than other species. Not only that but the medical science that animal research has contributed has saved lives. Saying that animal research is not a valid form of scientific research is completely irrational, just what is unscientific about it? In other words, he puts his belief, (a disputable one) that humans should not benefit from animal research above the science. Would you tell a human paraplegic that his suffering will not lessen because the animal research that would have helped him would have been obtained unethically? Meanwhile the primate that was "saved" is throwing feces at someone's head and continually banging his private parts against a steel cage.
Comment by Guts — January 8, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
January 8th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Robin:
LOL we've been through this before
Comment by Guts — January 8, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
January 9th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Guts, you said:
You link to the earlier thread when "Mark" said he'd email Dawkins and ask him - and we have no idea whether Dawkins replied, sicne Mark took no further part in the thread. Now if you or macht or MikeGene had been the ones emailing Dawkins, and he'd not replied, you'd have the glimmerings of a point…
Comment by Robin Levett — January 9, 2007 @ 8:37 am
January 9th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Guts, you said:
Your assertion that he doesn't attack the ALF because his primary goal is to attack religion rather misses the point that if he sees animal research as unethical any criticism he might make is not of ends but means; and the absolutism you identify in the ALF is as to ends, not means.
Again, I'm not sure that Dawkins's position on this is absolutist. His criticism is of the discontinuous mind; that criticism doesn't rule out there being a gradation between experiments on human subjects - which all agree is unacceptable ethically - and experiments on bacteria - which no-one sees an ethical problem with at all; while leaving experimentation on mammals/reptiles and the like on the unacceptable side of the line that must be drawn.
Please don't get me wrong; I don't claim that this is Dawkins's actual position, or that this is the reason he doesn't speak out against the ALF. I do however claim that it is a position consistent with his previous writings, and that to jump to the conclusion that he attacks ID but not the ALF because he is anti-religion ignores that fact.
You also said:
Not so. His (presumed from his writing in the Great Ape project) position is that it is unethical to experiment on animals; not that it is unethical for humans to benefit from such research. It is the research, not the benefit, that he presumptively sees as unethical.
Replace "animal research" with "human vivisection" in this quote and tell me what your answer is.
Comment by Robin Levett — January 9, 2007 @ 8:55 am
January 9th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Robin:
At this point it's really too late IMO. He had plenty of opportunities to do so by now in the e-mail from Mark Frank and in his book where talks about abolutists. Reacting to an e-mail now is just that, a reaction.
Robin:
ALF regards the question, both ends and means, as absolute, and if Dawkins point about absolutism is correct, then his criticism crosses over to this domain as well. It shouldn't matter if Dawkins agrees with ALF regarding animal research, he protrays himself as a consequentialist, ALFers are not consequentialists.
Robin:
His silence on ALF extremism surely suggests that his position is absolutist.
Robin:
Like I said before I don't really care if Dawkins actually believes this, but his position is quite inconsitent when he attacks some absolutists and not others, when attacks some threats to science, and not others. The "threats" he does attack happen to be, at least in his view, religious ones. ALF burns down labs, whereas ID is actually asking important questions about proteins, for example. His position is schizophrenic.
Robin:
I don't see how you could say that it's great that paraplegics' suffering can be lessened through animal research but regard animal research as morally wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Robin:
Thats once again , begging the question. I'd like to see a straight answer from you regarding the paraplegic. I should mention that on page 295, in his discussion of anti-abortion extremist Michael Bray and his violence against abortion clinics, Dawkins has a footnote:
Comment by Guts — January 9, 2007 @ 9:28 am
January 9th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Dawkins' tin ear regarding bioethics: The execution of Saddam Hussein as an "act of vandalism"…
As the only physician on ScienceBlogs with a special interest in skepticism, rationalism, and critical thinking as main themes of his blog, not to mention the only one who is actually involved in clinical research and the ethical issues inherent in suc…
Trackback by Respectful Insolence — January 9, 2007 @ 10:17 am
January 9th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Guts
What is this compulsion people have on this blog to define peiople as "*ists", and then draw conclusions from the presumed position of a "*ist"
Having said that; you cannot draw the conclusion that Dawkins is an "absolutist" as to animal rights from the his previous comments; even if he rejects animal research, that is a conclusion that is reachable from both an absolutist and a utilitarian standpoint.
You can criticise Dawkins for not speaking out on the ALF position ocne you know why he has not done so, since there are legitimate reasons for him not do so so without inconsistency; in the meantime, attributing positions to him and then criticising him for holding them isn't particularly honest. I really don't care whether your opinion is that he should have spoken out before; that isn't relevant to the issue of why he hasn't done so, or whether he is justified in not having done so. (Nor, BTW, can you assume I accept your claim for ID.)
My position on animal rights and "cures for paraplegia" isn't the issue; I'm not criticising anyone else's position on animal research.
Comment by Robin Levett — January 9, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
January 9th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Robin,
I havn't drawn any conclusions, I was very careful with my usage of words regarding Dawkins's beliefs. Nonetheless, I have no doubt in my mind that he does not advocate violence of any kind, even from ALF (just to be clear on that). At the very least it seems that Dawkins is more interested in combatting religion than defending science from actual threats, and only certain kinds of absolutism.
Comment by Guts — January 9, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
January 11th, 2007 at 5:41 am
[...] Claro que as reacções não se fizeram esperar. Dawkins é muito habilidoso quando pretende provocar uma boa polémica. Felizmente, tem também o condão de por as pessoas a pensar. [...]
Pingback by Helder Sanches » Dawkins: “A execução de Saddam foi um acto de vandalismo — January 11, 2007 @ 5:41 am