Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

'an Illiterate Disgrace': Richard Dawkins Writes Scathing Review Of Amazon Instruction Manual

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/an-illiterate-disgrace-richard-dawkins-writes-scathing-review-of-amazon-instruction-manual-8678812.html

The “appallingly bad” manual was a “disgrace, and alone is enough to merit the minimum possible number of stars,” Dawkins wrote.

Urging Amazon to “please hire somebody who knows how to write at least ONE human language, to write your instruction manuals,” in a Tweet linking to his review, Prof Dawkins began by dissecting the exhortation to “Terminate software program used on optional drive.”

“Well, which do you mean, ‘optical’ or ‘optional’?,” wrote Dawkins, famed for his visceral disagreements with those who expound religious faith.

“It might seem obvious that ‘optional’ is a misprint for ‘optical’, but since it is distinctly puzzling how the new purchaser is expected to know HOW to remove a DRIVE from the computer (does it perhaps mean remove any old disks that might be IN the internal optical drive?) one is left wondering whether it really is a misprint after all.”

After checking the various international translations in the booklet, Dawkins writes: “I suspect that NONE of them is correct when they tell us to remove the entire optical READER.

“I suspect that they really meant to tell us to remove any DISKS that might be in the internal reader. I genuinely don’t know, however, what this ludicrously ambiguous instruction is really telling me to do, and am only thankful that the device itself appears to work, nevertheless.”

He continued: “But that’s not the end of it.” An instruction to “Terminate software progam” added to the confusion. “I looked at the screen capture picture, which is supposed to show you how to do this. The reproduction of the picture in the booklet is so poor as to be impossible to read.

“This is not a problem with my eyesight, for I scanned it at very high resolution, in order to try to read it, and it is indeed COMPLETELY illegible.”

Looks like we have a new Victor Meldrew!

:lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 'celebs' are now addicted to twitter and feel that they have to provide copy, or entertainment, for their twitter followers.

Hence why we have celebs commenting on the most mundane of things - they fear seeing their follower numbers going down and so tweet, tweet, tweet.

Life is for living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I thinks Dawkins is an odious, objectionable little t*sspot.

Grumpiness I can deal with, he seems to think he knows more about everything than everybody else and it's his moral obligation to point it out at every opportunity.

BAD advert for scientific reason.

P

With you there.

(I've posted this on a previous thread) Dawkins slimy (impo) response to the news that former leading atheist Antony Flew had turned all deist in his twilight years

I've read Flew's book and what Dawkins says is flat-out incorrect and miss-characterises the reasons Flew gave for changing his position.

Flew's not especially senile response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC2pMiSCJXM

Dawkins is quite careful about who he debates and who gets custody of the footage and editing rights afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps he could translate it back into perfect Mandarin. Then the person who was undoubtedly paid a pittance so he could buy it cheaply could rant about his litteracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I thinks Dawkins is an odious, objectionable little t*sspot.

Grumpiness I can deal with, he seems to think he knows more about everything than everybody else and it's his moral obligation to point it out at every opportunity.

BAD advert for scientific reason.

P

He reminds me of a scientific version of Brian Sewell - they both always look like they have a permanent bad smell under their noses. Pretentious w*****s. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

He reminds me of a scientific version of Brian Sewell - they both always look like they have a permanent bad smell under their noses. Pretentious w*****s. :angry:

As I've said elsewhere, I've recently semi-studied and then discounted atheism in favour of something that makes a bit more sense. The problem with these fundamentalist atheists is that they're not content with being right, they want to be seen to be right - they somehow want to "win" and I'm not sure that they haven't simply chosen atheism vs. theism as it's a bit of an open goal.

Actually in Dawkins' case I suspect what he really wants is a load of nerdy but nubile student types following him around going "Dawkins, you're so right!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said elsewhere, I've recently semi-studied and then discounted atheism in favour of something that makes a bit more sense. The problem with these fundamentalist atheists is that they're not content with being right, they want to be seen to be right - they somehow want to "win" and I'm not sure that they haven't simply chosen atheism vs. theism as it's a bit of an open goal.

Actually in Dawkins' case I suspect what he really wants is a load of nerdy but nubile student types following him around going "Dawkins, you're so right!"

My definitions but...

A scientist is someone who, if they have an idea about how something works, goes out of their humble way to find the best arguments and evidence against their idea. They'll attempt to torture-test their pet theory to death, six ways from Sunday, because, above any petty personal considerations, Truth is what counts.

A polemicist is someone who, if they have an idea about how something works, will arrange an interview with some dumb loonbob redneck Baptist and selectively edit the exchange to make his carefully selected opponent look like even more of a gibbon.

I know which way I think Dickie swings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

He reminds me of a scientific version of Brian Sewell - they both always look like they have a permanent bad smell under their noses. Pretentious w*****s. :angry:

After a bit of head scratching I've finally realised who he reminds me of.

Prue Leith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed Dawkins' early books and even saw him speak at the university where I studied once. I was already an atheist so his arguments hardly needed to convince me, nor to do I feel particularly compelled to stock up on new ones to try and convince others. I'm hardly likely to change a true believer's mind, and nor are they mine. I dare say that the beliefs and lives of theists and atheists alike will seem every bit as terribly daft in a few hundred years time as those of medieval times.

I used to think Dawkins was a compelling advocate for science, but he increasingly comes across as a bit of ranter nowadays. That's a shame for him and whatever legacy he hoped to live behind.

Complaining about the manual for a cheap as chips DVD drive? I guess he doesn't have better things to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't seem to find it online but I recall a great interview from some Anglican priest of Dawkins. While the religious man didn't really make much of a case for Jesus per se he ran rings round Dawkins in debate and made him look like the conceited haughty tit he is.

Edit: Sorry, it was a mathematician... found it now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4uG3qC6KBw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't seem to find it online but I recall a great interview from some Anglican priest of Dawkins. While the religious man didn't really make much of a case for Jesus per se he ran rings round Dawkins in debate and made him look like the conceited haughty tit he is.

Edit: Sorry, it was a mathematician... found it now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4uG3qC6KBw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here he is being an utter arsehole to Brandon Flowers from the Killers.

Can't see the problem there to be honest. He called it as it is. If Brandon is upset because the facts don't accord with his world view, then I don't see how that's Dawkins problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't seem to find it online but I recall a great interview from some Anglican priest of Dawkins. While the religious man didn't really make much of a case for Jesus per se he ran rings round Dawkins in debate and made him look like the conceited haughty tit he is.

Edit: Sorry, it was a mathematician... found it now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4uG3qC6KBw

Perspective is a funny thing. Just listened to that and was left with the completely opposite view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perspective is a funny thing. Just listened to that and was left with the completely opposite view

I'm not exactly the world's greatest Dawkins fan, but I don't think he's at his worst in those two clips either.

Pitching Dawkins, or any other Secular Humanist, against people who believe any one particular sky fairy narrative is always going to open up scope for Dawkins to score big points. Shooting holes in sky fairy narratives is easy sport though and absolutely not the same thing as Dawkins demonstrating the validity of his own narrative. 'You're wrong. I must therefore be right'. Nope, not even close.

The Christian who allegedly 'destroys' Dawkins in the debate above can't help himself. Instead of sticking with subjecting Dawkins' assertions, reasoning and language to critical rigour he gets bored after a while and starts whittering on about Jesus. If I were Dawkins I would have grinned like a Cheshire cat at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we do need people like him to continue the fight against church influence in stuff they shouldn't be anywhere near.

I agree, but I would go further to say that the Church shouldn't be influential anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a particular fan of Dawkins' public speaking, and while his abrasive tone does have some fans, he does come over as a stuck-up "intellectual snob".

One of the things that is interesting though is that Dawkins, in this type of debate tends to let the religious person run rings round him; in that he hasn't learned much from their debating technique; which is often very slick and very rehearsed, and intended specifically to catch favour with the audience, even if they are talking piffle. You can see this in the above videos; questions are defelected and bounced back onto Dawkins who wasn't, in appears, expecting this.

I had a phase of very devout Christian upbringing as a kid; and one of the things they taught at various Bible camps, etc. was how to debate "Darwinists". They taught techniques such as how to deflect stock answers, how to change 1 question into 20 questions that the opponent has no hope of answering, etc. The ability to defend the bible in a debate was very much a key part of the "curriculum".

The religious fundamentalists are also very cunning in their plans to force their way into science curricula, particularly in the US. Things such as "intelligent design" are old hat. The new technique involves people posing as scientists writing the curricula, to look scientific. For example, the latest revision to the Texas biology curriculum has dramatically rearranged the evolution section; now, key prominence must be given to topics such as "the evidence for evolution of complexity of metabolic and biochemical pathways". Looks impressive; but there's a problem, biochemical pathways don't fossilize, so this is not a topic with direct evidence (although there are indirect sources of evidence). This and a whole bunch of other topics have been specifically selected in this way, to make teaching as difficult as possible, and sound as if it is based on the flimsiest of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but I would go further to say that the Church shouldn't be influential anywhere.

And we are going to replace all those legacy ideas of what is 'right' and 'wrong' with what?

Whether people like it or not, contemporary morality is rooted in a religious past.

Start trying to draw up a fresh set of moral principles with a completely clean, neo-Darwinist sheet and you could end up with a very different sense of what's OK and not OK.

Compulsory eugenics and euthanasia? WTF not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see the problem there to be honest. He called it as it is. If Brandon is upset because the facts don't accord with his world view, then I don't see how that's Dawkins problem.

You'd have to have a heart of of stone not to find the story of mormonism absolutely 'kin hilarious. South Park nailed it. Only tribal loyalty and indoctrination from an early age keeps stuff like organised religion going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we are going to replace all those legacy ideas of what is 'right' and 'wrong' with what?

Whether people like it or not, contemporary morality is rooted in a religious past.

Start trying to draw up a fresh set of moral principles with a completely clean, neo-Darwinist sheet and you could end up with a very different sense of what's OK and not OK.

Compulsory eugenics and euthanasia? WTF not?

The 10 commandments etc are man made, and the first 5 are just about 'follow my religion (or else),

We (humanity) are quite capable of drawing up a code of morals without referring to any fictional superbeing. I.e:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 10 commandments etc are man made, and the first 5 are just about 'follow my religion (or else),

We (humanity) are quite capable of drawing up a code of morals without referring to any fictional superbeing. I.e:

Capable? Possibly. It hasn't worked out so well so far when attempted in various People's Paradises such as post-revolutionary France or Russia.

Most people, religious and not religious, seem OK with some form of the Golden Rule. The problem for a Dawkins fan being that the Golden Rule runs counter to the Selfish Gene narrative. At least some of the time, it's Good to **** the other guy over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no fan of Dawkins, or God either, although one made the Universe (allegedly)! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 242 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.