Richard Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

Josh is in California, Dawkins is in the UK; this might explain why no arrests at this time.

If it’s a civil matter, I’m not sure any arrests would be made. I know precious little about the law though, and even less about California law, so please feel free to correct me.

I don`t get the whole Dawkins love for Maher either. I wonder if it`s just a case of mutual back-scratching, with Dawkins defending Maher because Maher gives him more public exposure.

As for Timonen, it couldn`t have happened to a better person. If I remember right, the guy was a jackass who alienated a huge part of the senior board members and voluntary mods.

It’s not just skeptical organizations – Embezzlement is probably the number one Church-related crime as well . Most organizations tend to trust people and do not have adequate safeguards in place to prevent this type of behavior. Nobody likes to think that it can happen to them, and nobody wants to work in a place where you are (apparently) under suspicion at all times. I think most people don’t want to take the necessary steps.

Personally, I went off Dawkins when I read him writing nonsense about evolution.

In The God Delusion, he denies any role for genetic drift in evolution.

…This is just nuts. The role was elucidated in the 1920s.

The civil and criminal actions are not mutually exclusive however. If Dawkins really had the resources and evidence, he would be taking both actions right now. My guess is the case isn’t as cut and dry as Dawkins’ compliant initially suggests.

Really? Then how do you describe Maher’s embrace of cancer quackery?

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2009/09/is_bill_maher_really_that_ignorant_part_2.php

I joined a horse group a while ago. My very first mailing, before even receiving any group membership paperwork, was a letter sent to all members about firing the treasurer, suspected embezzlement, and “we’re looking into this.”

This summer, more than 3 years after I joined, they informed the membership that they finally had all the evidence and they were pursuing criminal charges. I think the total amount was less than $20k.

$1mil+ probably would be even more complicated.

Foundations need to bite the bullet and hire professionals with a track record. Preferably with actual companies that do business with other entities so they can get references. This transatlantic marriage was ripe for infidelity. Who was doing the bookkeeping? Who was doing the accounting? It should never be the same person . . . ever. Hire professionals.

If I were a superstitious sort, I’d say it was Karma for that tacky scarlet letter logo. What the hell kind of designer uses Zapfino?

True, you can pursue both avenues, but there are good reasons for not doing it. First, the courts frown on forum shopping. The reason *I* wouldn’t pursue criminal charges, were I Dawkins (and keep in mind, I’m a real law-n-order kinda gal) is a matter of expense. Pursuing criminal charges of fraud can be an expensive endeavour. Sure, it’d be nice to believe that the police cover the costs of pursuing the charges, but the foundation would still need to hire an attorney, pay for record production, etc if they wanted a relatively speedy trial . None of that money gets reimbursed, which would eat into the foundations currently slender resources.

On a purely pragmatic level, I’d be following the same course as Dawkins, as much as I’d like to see the guy in jail too. It most emphatically does not mean that there is more to the story. Frankly, I’m impressed that it’s going this far – the vast majority of employee fraud or embezzlement are NEVER taken to either court. Usually the employee is terminated without a reference and never reported at all.

In The God Delusion, he denies any role for genetic drift in evolution.

Having read The God Delusion, and several of Dawkin’s other works, that doesn’t strike me as likely.

Should read “pretty much dismissing it completely in favour of a natural-selection-only view”.

Perhaps it can be argued that he just over-simplifies for the general public. However, given how much space he gives to off-topic musings in every book, I think he could have managed somewhere to fit in a brief statement about genetic drift’s role, as has been known since 1920s studies that lead to the modern synthesis.

Embezzlement and fraud can be a problem for any organization. I’ve heard a few stories from family members who work with small/medium-sized businesses; one story involved a sum similar to that in the OP. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of doctors are defrauded by their bookkeepers.

It’s not just skeptical organizations – Embezzlement is probably the number one Church-related crime as well .

And schools, especially PTAs and the like.

A situation tangentially ‘like’ this is a reason I had nothing to do with atheist organizations for a couple of years (to the point where Im still wary of even subscribing to the big groups magazines).

The ‘best’ cure Ive seen is to have division and overlap of responsibilities. No one person ever is 100% in charge of any one thing.

We have this with OKC Atheists (along with regular elections), and when I spoke at the TX Freethought Convention, I had no less than six people double-check that I had been paid (I didnt know I was going to get paid anything. someone could have just pocketed the cash and no one would have been the wiser).

Mark P.:

And schools, especially PTAs and the like.

And museums: Woman Sentenced For Embezzling Money From Bellevue Museum.

I have helped audit a PTA, and another group… both were very painful, but necessary. I am presently a treasurer for a parent group, and it would be incredibly easy to skim off some of the donations. Though with the total funds being less than a thousand dollars, it is not worth it … and it is not in my nature (I actually kick in my own money to bring amounts like $21.45 to $25).

I don’t have much to say on the topic in general, but am I the only one who finds it weird that the complaint not only mentions that Timonen’s girlfriend is “significantly older”, but puts it in scare quotes?

It might be an actual quotation, though it hardly seems relevant either way.

I’m on the board of a local charity. When I was elected for the board I asked several questions including when the last financial audit was. It was ten years previously, just before the board’s treasurer was elected. I strongly recommended the board have an audit done immediately if not sooner. The only one not in favor of this was the treasurer. As might be expected, she was skimming several thousand dollars per year from an organization which was just scraping by.

No criminal charges were filed but after the civil case she ended up owing almost $100 thousand in restitution. Plus we have annual audits by an accounting firm.

For those of you who don’t insist on regular audits.

I’m remotely affiliated with a nonprofit that hadn’t made sure to spread the auditing and oversight responsibilities around properly. Luckily all that happened was that some filings got missed and everything was quickly, and fairly cheaply cleaned up. Unfortunately a huge amount of stress was involved, people blew up at each-other and friendships were strained. As nasty as it felt from the inside it was about as good as it gets when external, paid, auditors aren’t used.

“6

Josh has joined the RationalSkepticism.org forum, which was set up in response to the demise of the old RDF forum. A thread about this topic in which Josh is currently active can be found here; http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/dawkins-sues-josh-timonen-t14455.html

Posted by: HughMcB | October 24, 2010 1:12 PM”

Well, following your link we discover that:

“MODNOTE
Members please be advised that joshtimonen joined as a member here during the course of this thread and he is therefore now protected under the Forum Users Agreement.”

Which agreement states:

“You may not:

* Start critical threads about other members”

Nice web forum. All you have to do to preclude negative threads is to join and you are magically insulated from criticism. Maybe the Catholic Church should join? And Mike Adams? And…well, with such a stupid policy I can’t really think of “RationalSkepticim.org” as worthy of its name. Skepticism that applies only to non-members–a move right out of the crank playbook.

But, as to the OP here, it think it is silly to lump your dislike of Dawkins support for Bill Maher with his organization allegedly being a victim of criminal embezzlement. It is a non sequitur. You are basically saying you don’t like the guy thus anything bad that happens to his organization is somehow related–but it isn’t. I think you would rightly tear apart anybody who tried such a feeble connection for their own purposes.

Meh, sorry, but really, who effing cares?
T’aint medicine, t’aint rational thinking. t’aint anything but a spat.
Why are you bothering with this?

And of course there’s interest that the money could have been earning if the legitimate owner had received it… the money being paid back has lost value due to inflation and so it should be a larger amount just to be equivalent to what was stolen—to say nothing of punitive damages. Perhaps the girlfriend might be forced to contribute some of the profit from her renovated house if someone can prove that it was renovated with profit from a crime.

Tort:

[H]ow many awards for science has Francis Collins won? How many of those people who introduced him made a point to disagree with his view that humans could not have evolved without god?

As far as I know, atheism was not a criterion for any of the numerous awards that Collins has won, but promoting “increased scientific knowledge” is a criterion for the Dawkins Award. I submit that despite his evangelical beliefs Collins has a record of doing lots of good science over the years. Maher, despite his on-again off-again atheism (perhaps anti-religionism is a better label) has a record of promoting medical misinformation and quackery.

For Orac and myself, good science is the primary concern; for others in the skeptical movement, atheism appears to be the primary concern, to the point of making excuses for irrational people like Bill Maher. Orac and I are in the minority, I fear, and I don’t think that bodes well for the future of the skeptical movement.

I’m not saying you are wrong just be aware that the choices available are that we avoid giving out accolades to those who hold unscientific beliefs (which means most religious scientists are out) or we acknowledge them but maintain clearly that the scientific community disagrees with these people. Those who oppose giving the award to Bill Maher but don’t have a problem with giving awards to religious people particularly when their bizarre beliefs are not questioned are being philosophically inconsistent.

As Pieter says, atheism was not a criteria for any of the awards Collins has won.
It is absolutely not philosophically inconsistent to oppose giving a science and atheism award to an atheist who actively opposes real medical science, while accepting that a well respected scientist who has actively contributed to science deserves a scientific award which refers not at all to either atheism nor philosophical naturalism.

Nice web forum. All you have to do to preclude negative threads is to join and you are magically insulated from criticism. Maybe the Catholic Church should join? And Mike Adams? And…well, with such a stupid policy I can’t really think of “RationalSkepticim.org” as worthy of its name. Skepticism that applies only to non-members–a move right out of the crank playbook.

That was probably added to prevent people from starting threads that are nothing but bitchfests.
I think you are taking the interpretation of that rule much too literally and you expanded on it way too much.
Besides, you can make a thread critical of someone’s ideas and actions without being directly critical of that person. (Even though I feel connecting those actions directly to the perpetrator of said actions is totally fair)

His name’s Pieter B and he proved nothing about your point.

You said nothing about “giving Francis Collins an award for the promotion of science”, you said “how many awards for science has Francis Collins won?”

That’s for “science”, not “the promotion of science”. Undeniably Francis Collins has done a lot of “science” and deserved his awards, whatever you think about his religious views.

The only person giving a special allowance for anything here is you when you try to equivocate between Maher winning an award he only half-qualified for and Collins winning awards he actually deserved. Presumably because you support Maher’s non-wacky views.

@Tort: Ender suggested you agree with Maher’s non-wacky views. Quackery is among Maher’s wacky views.

Newton was perhaps the greatest polymath that ever lived but he wrote more words in his role as a theologan than he did as a natural philosopher. The fact that he claimed “Jesus was sent to Earth to operate the levers of gravity” or the fact he wrote almost a million words on the numerology of 666 does not detract one iota from his achivements. The principa is, and will remain, one of the greatest intellectual feats of all time.

Dawkins is not in the same league as Newton but the same principle applies, nothing he does will change the fact that “the selfish gene” will remain a classic piece of scientific litrature for generations to come. Nothing he does will make “Unweaving the rainbow” less of an eye-opener to people who believe the feeling of religious awe is something only religious people can feel. Some other great works from Dawkins include, Climbing mount improbable and The blind watchmaker, every one of his books are brilliant examples of scientfic communicator in the tradition of Sagan, Bronowski, Feynman, et al.

Sure Dawkins has his faults and foibles as we all do. But before you write him off just because he associates with someone you don’t like, ask yourself this; how do your own achievments stack up against his?

every one of his books are brilliant examples of scientfic communicator in the tradition of Sagan, Bronowski, Feynman, et al.

Mentioning Bronowski and Feynman along with the other two is a pretty insulting. Brownowski and Feynman never practiced evidence free science, as far as I can recall. And Feynman was, as someone recently said, only ten-times smarter than just about anyone else. Dawkins, especially, has had an unfortunate effect on biology, popularizing the introduction of the standards of the so-called sciences into what used to be a far more rigorous interpretation of actual data and physical evidence, turning it into story telling. And that practice has infected all kinds of academic fields, economics, one of the more disturbing. Though since his adaptationist religion began with Malthus, it’s a development that has some interesting features. It’s too bad that modern evolutionary science, which lacks narrative appeal, is at a disadvantage over that story telling. It will suffer from it, which is unfortunate.

And Atheism has to do with Science Based Medicine how?

And why do science bloggers care about what Atheist Alliance International does with it’s awards?

Because Science Blogs is an atheist website with atheistic interests and an atheistic agenda. Science is a tool not a psuedoreligion whose purpose is to bash out religion through passive aggressive techniques.

I believe Harriet Hall showed the sentiments of SBMers when she said: “If science is not the best way to determine what’s moral, what is the best way?”

Anthony McCarthy, Dawkins has had a big effect on the public understanding of evolution. In terms of actual scientific research, not so much. He was never a prolific researcher and is best known for the promotion of the ideas of other scientists (notably RA Fisher). I work in genetic myself and don’t see Dawkins own research as having any major influence on the work of fellow geneticists (apart from encouraging some of them to write their own books).

I still respect many of the things Dawkins has said, but my key problem with him is that he appears to value anti-religiousness (not just atheism) above critical thinking and science, and his anti-religiousness skews his perspective on, for lack of a better word, evil.

In the God Delusion, he pretty much states that the psychological abuse of children via religious indoctrination is a worse crime than what he seems to consider a little harmless buggery.

Many years ago, I worked for a 501(c)3 organization. One day, one of the top people in the accounting department just wasn’t there anymore. (I don’t remember if he was the comptroller or not.)

I heard via the rumor mill that he had been fired for embezzling, and that they weren’t suing because he had gambled away the money so there was no point.

What got to me is that they were also avoiding all publicity (hence, office rumor mill and I have no idea if the members were told anything). Apparently lawyers are so expensive that they had agreed to simply give him the minimal “This person was employed here in $job during these dates. Company policy is not to provide more detailed references,” leaving him free to find another job, and embezzle and gamble away more money.

I’ll give Maher his due for exposing Christine O’Donnell’s wackiness. Other than that, I don’t really take him seriously or think he’s especially reliable. He wouldn’t get work in network TV if he was.

@mikerattlesnake
That’s very interesting, but also completely unrelated to whether you can decry Maher’s Awards and accept Collins’s Awards while remaining philosophically consistent.

Which you can.

On what you said: Dawkins may well have decided that promoting Atheism was important enough that it merited throwing one of the criteria for the award under the bus, and not bothered to announce the change to the Award, but as you say, it does not change the fact that Maher was a bad choice.

I would argue that the stridency with which Maher pushed his particular beliefs combined with a dearth of published research disqualifies him, but the actual beliefs are no worse than religious ones.

Well in general… wait, what does in general mean? Fuck it, lets compare Collins and Maher.

Collins: Believes in and practices good science except he believes in a Creator God

Maher: Believes in good science except where he advocates wholesale skepticism of ‘Western’ medicine, acceptance of pseudoscientific pseudomedicine, and other anti-scientific beliefs.

Well, Maher’s definitely not as bad as a creationist, but he’s a whole lot worse than Collins, and anyone else who accepts all current science but also believes in a God.

Simply put –

A belief in a God that does not contradict science = less bad than Belief in pseudoscience that does contradict science.

Hey, I’ve replied but it’s held for moderation, so you should see it soon enough.

Maher is an easy call. He is not a skeptic, he’s a contrarian, whose opposition to authority is on automatic pilot.

Woo. Such a useful word if you don’t really care about intellectual honesty. Is M-theory “woo”?

What is it about rationalist/skeptic groups that make them seemingly have such a hard time running their organizations well from a financial standpoint?

I know a number of churches that explicitly put non-church-members in charge of the church’s finances. One reason is that there’s no “we can trust this guy because he believes like us” to blind them to the need to audit their books. So the donors know that their funds will be handed professionally. And the people running the ministry never know who is and isn’t giving, shielding them from ignoring their small donors.

Melissa: “#33 wotty: It is pretty much standard practice to sue for more than was embezzled”

I don’t think that wotty was suggesting that there was something wrong with RD demanding $950,000 in compensatory damages, but rather indicating why Orac would have thought that Timonen had embezzled about $1 million rather than $375,000 cited in the article.

@Anthony McCarthy

On second thought, nevermind. I just did a search for your name and got a bunch of boring, familiar, accomodationalist drivel. You seem to see a lot of merit in coming up with convoluted ways to avoid actually having evidence for your beliefs.

To paraphrase:

Science changes a lot, so I would be surprised if evolution/natural selection is the dominant paradigm in a few hundred years. Therefore beardy sky man.

Liberals aren’t hard-line atheists and are turned off by their stridency. Therefore everyone has an invisible dad.

Stuff happened a long time ago, and none of us were there. Therefore magic ghosts and zombies.

Our perception is not perfect and our brains create constructs and metaphors. Therefore unicorn farts.

mikerattlesnake, don’t believe that the new atheist blog clique say, they seem to be about as bad at reading comprehension as they are with science. I’ve always held that science is unable to accommodate anything but rigorously obtained physical evidence and that the wall of separation, as well, was an absolute bar to introducing topics of religion into public school science classes. Though, since like “woo” “accomodationism” is a word that seems to mean whatever a new atheist wants it to mean, without logical restraint or intellectual honesty, I don’t really expect that will impress you.

I’ve never expected that the crowd that thinks “unicorn farts” is a good debating point was going to be in the audience I try to address.

The Richard Dawkins Award is granted by Atheist Alliance International; Dawkins presents the award at their convention. I do not believe that he is either on the AAI Board or the Dawkins Award selection committee. Dawkins’s repeated defense of giving Maher the award indicates to me that for him, promoting atheism is the #1 priority, so much so that it trumps someone loudly proclaiming views that are a danger to public health. Maher considers Barbara Loe Fisher and Jay Gordon authorities on vaccination, for cryin’ out loud. According to him, Fisher has “devoted her life” to studying vaccines. [eyeroll]

Collins is a self-identified evangelical christian who nonetheless specifically rejects creationism and its avatar intelligent design. I don’t see that that is anywhere close to the danger level of Maher’s promotion of outright quackery. If nothing else, the fact that under his leadership the Human Genome Project came in ahead of schedule and under budget qualifies him for both a science and a cat-herding award.

@anthony mccarthy

I didn’t listen to what other people said (the search returns comments not articles), I just read a few of your recent posts. I was bored. Your arguments are all fantastical constructs to help you avoid the obvious: there is no evidence for god (and especially any particular god), overwhelming evidence for a naturalistic universe, and no reason as a scientifically minded person to accept the former over the latter. You seem like someone who has a beef with atheists because they say things that make you uncomfortable, so you lash out as ineffectually as you can (but with LOTS OF WORDS). I have no problem with the religious (as long as they keep it mostly to themselves and in the realms it belongs in), but you lot are unbearable.

1. Frankly, I’ve never understood the love affair with Dawkins. I don’t find his writing particularly compelling, and he seems to have an uncanny knack for inserting foot in mouth at very odd moments. He often speaks before considering the downstream implications of his pronouncement, and then has to back-pedal.
2. That said, I don’t think that has anything to with whether or not he’s justified in suing Josh. I would say that’s a private matter between the two parties.
3. If Dawkins is in the right, and Josh did embezzle, that would not affect my appreciation of lack of it for Dawkins.

It’s been pointed out that whenever money is involved, mischief follows. My personal experience was many years ago — my high school reunion chairperson collected upward of $20,000 from the class and then absconded with the funds. We never saw her again; and have yet to have a reunion. No one’s willing to even try to organize such a thing.

I’ve been on three 501(c)3 nonprofit boards and have been the president of a nonprofit for the past six years. The first two had financial problems when I joined their boards and I tried to get the organizations to change their practice, cut costs and pay off debt. I had little success and eventually had to leave the boards to keep from hitting my head against the wall of tradition and unfounded optimism that often happens when nice folk want to do worthwhile things but forget that the numbers must add up at the end of the day. I’m now going into my sixth year as the president of a nonprofit youth symphony. This organization had accounts with half a dozen different businesses for purchasing symphony scores and fund raising items. In my first year I was able to get the board to agree to close all these accounts and operate on a cash basis and commit to not spending if there was no money. People get involved with nonprofit organizations and charities because they have hopes and dreams; hopes and dreams often preclude rational thinking about money.

Josh has joined the RationalSkepticism.org forum, which was set up in response to the demise of the old RDF forum.

Given that, by all reports, Josh almost singlehandedly KILLED it, that’s kind of a disingenuous characterization.

I’m all for getting at the truth and cracking into falsities, but it actually disturbs me the way some, such as Adam C. (#9), go about it.

He starts by deriding an author for something which he may not have said directly but maybe/probably something like it. He says: “Personally, I went off Dawkins when I read him writing nonsense about evolution”

Never mind actually checking the source or conveying any sense of doubt about the actual quote… just deride someone as foolish – it’s on the internet, nothing can really happen.

And when it’s obvious he’s wrong, he’s never heard from again. No apology or acknowledgment.

I find this behavior insidious and disturbing in a way that probably deserves a blog topic on its own.
(I apologize to Orac for getting off-topic)

Here’s the thread I’m referring to:

Adam C.
“Personally, I went off Dawkins when I read him writing nonsense about evolution…
“In The God Delusion, he denies any role for genetic drift in evolution. …This is just nuts. The role was elucidated in the 1920s.”

“The exact words are something like “there is much debate over whether genetic drift has any role in evolution”, as a casual dismissal followed by him pretty much dismissing it in favour of a natural-selection-only view”

Fitz replies:
What is it about this that strikes you as nonsense/nuts/insane/disgusting?:

“Biologists acknowledge that a gene may spread through a population not because it is a good gene but simply because it is a lucky one. We call this genetic drift. How important it is vis-a-vis natural selection has been controversial. But it is now widely accepted in the form of the so-called neutral theory of molecular genetics. If a gene mutates to a different version of itself which has an identical effect, the difference is neutral, and selection cannot favour one or the other. Nevertheless, by what statisticians call sampling error over generations, the new mutant form can eventually replace the original form in the gene pool. This is a true evolutionary change at the molecular level (even if no change is observed in the world of whole organisms). It is a neutral evolutionary change that owes nothing to selective advantage.”

Tort, specifically, in his own words, with citations of where to find them does Francis Collins promote pseudo-science?

Please! Stick to the rivers and the lakes that you’re used to!

Anthony McCarthy,
The reference is to a song by the group tlc. I think SC recently saw the film “The Other Guys”.
Tort,
By your logic, Albert Einstein should have his Nobel Prize rescinded as he believed in God. Uh, oh. Suddenly your argument doesn’t look so strong.

The reference is to a song by the group tlc. I think SC recently saw the film “The Other Guys”.

The first sentence is correct; the second is not. I had never heard of that movie until you mentioned it.

In other words, what’s held in new atheist circles to be the higher learning. Citing Douglas Adams would have clinched it for him, you’d think.

I’m female. It was a joke, McCarthy. I would never bother to engage you seriously. You’re ridiculous. Why can’t you stick to the Intersocktion and stop trolling good blogs?

Sorry, SC, I generally think of new atheists with gender neutral pseudonyms as boys because most of them are and I usually figure women are less prone to frat style behavior.

If Orac wants me to stop commenting here all he has to do is ask me to, in private, by e-mail, and I won’t comment here.

Sigmund, I said he was directly responsible for popularizing evo-psy’s mythologizing. If you have a candidate for most widely read exponent of it, I’ll consider them as another example.

You aren’t denying that he has popularized the idea that behaviors of our ancestors in the remote past, expressions of our genes which are favorable adaptations which survive and are still expressed today, are you? Because I’m wondering, considering your mentioning his sparse publication in formal science, what else his fame and former chair at Oxford were all about.

I’d suggest The Selfish Gene to be sufficient to back up what I said. I believe it’s been republished in recent years. If Richard Dawkins would like to deny the idea, he might begin by repudiating this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins:_How_a_Scientist_Changed_the_Way_We_Think

The Anthony McCarthy theory of Debate: take yourself seriously enough and bloviate long enough and no one will notice that you haven’t actually made a solid point, just empty jabs at a particular group you’re not fond of. Anyone who deviates from this formula by making fun of you, not taking you particularly seriously, or just expressing a personality that is not so intellectually insecure as yourself is not to be listened to (lest they topple your fragile self-image).

Though I’m not prepared to conduct any discussion in tweet sized bites vulgar enough to be comprehensible to the mikerattlesnakes in the audience.

Anthony, it is rather disrespectful of you when asked a genuine question to merely throw up a smokescreen of obfuscation and bid a hasty retreat. Stop avoiding the point. You made the accusation.
Back it up with evidence.

Smokescreen, nothing. I told people on the blogs I was going to skip work all week to work on the election.

If Richard Dawkins wants to distance himself from the rest of evolutionary psychology I’d certainly be interested in being corrected. His books are are, I’m pretty certain, the most widely circulated, most widely translated and most widely cited, literary promotion of it. I’d rather deal with other people in these arguments but it’s rare to find a blog fan of the idea who’s familiar with anyone else who promotes it, other than his version of T. Huxley, Daniel Dennett.

If Mr. Dawkins is still paying attention I’d like him to either affirm or deny that he believes that behaviors of our pre-human and early human ancestors are known sufficiently to back up assertions made about whether or not they conferred an adaptive advantage to individuals who performed the behaviors and in enough detail to be treated with the normal procedures of science. Since a behavior actually had to have happened to exist, I’d think that just figuring out whether or not they ever happened would be a neat
trick. I’d also like citations of his criticism of the widespread practice of making assertions about the entirely unobserved behaviors of our ancestors within the literature of science.

I’ve talked about the new, evidence free, science but unless definite assertions are made about that, it would appear that it’s far less more amorphous than even that.

I’d imagine his many critics would also be interested in knowing if they’ve not understood him all these years. Unless that comment with his name on it is a fraud, I’m wondering why he didn’t take issue with my original statement, himself.

I’ll probably be able to take another break at noon time EDT.

Anthony, you are just repeating yourself, again while avoiding getting anywhere close to an actual point. Dawkins addressed a specific claim about something he was supposed to have said in ‘The God Delusion’. You, on the other hand have only given vague generalizations of something he might, or might not think!
Give a specific quote of Dawkins that backs up your accusations, not another waffling example of what can most charitably be seen as typing practice.

Andrew = Anthony up there for anyone who was confused.

That’s the selfish gene, not evo-psych. This is logic on the order of “Hawaii hasn’t been a state very long, therefore the president was really born in Kenya.” It doesn’t matter that you can show the antecedent, because there’s no connection between that and what you’re claiming it leads to.

Here’s my impression of what happened:

Timonen was essentially running the entire spinoff company that was the online store. He was more or less in charge of it — including salaries. Dawkins had apparently instructed Timonen to pay himself a certain amount, and Timonen seems to have paid himself more than that (though, I must say, not at all an absurd amount… $125k/yr for a webmaster in California — which I believe is what the amortized amount comes out to — is not outrageous by any means, though it would be unusually high for a non-profit to pay their webmaster, I should think).

On top of what may either have been confusion, deception, or something in between, on the topic of Timonen’s salary, this was exascerbated by Timonen repeatedly insisting that the store was “just breaking even” — which was technically true, but that’s because the store was paying its webmaster top dollar.

This is all just my outsider interpretation of course. It seems plausible to me, and also would explain why they are only pursuing a civil case — it sounds less like outright fraud to me than it does like bad faith business dealings. In fact, it doesn’t sound like Timonen was “cooking the books” at all — he was just overpaying himself and misrepresenting the situation to the UK foundation.

James Sweet: “Dawkins had apparently instructed Timonen to pay himself a certain amount”

Although in clause (v) of paragraph 23 of RDF vs. Timonen, it looks like Dawkins had understood that Timonen would not be compensated for operating the store itself, since he was already otherwise compensated (for being the webmaster, I think). Or something like that.

Anthony McCarthy, why on earth would you a priori reject the possibility of studying behavior from the viewpoint of natural selection?

Your answer seems to be, “because no one was there to witness behavior in the deep past.”

Have you not noticed that scientists can study many things that they do not witness directly?

Do you have a problem with ethology? How about cosmology?

@Anthony McCarthy

Call me old fashioned but I like science with actual evidence to back it up.

Call me old fashioned, but I like commenters who back up their claims with actual evidence.

Thus far, you have merely argued by assertion.

(And what’s up with the “new atheism” thing? Not everyone in this thread is atheist, y’know.)

Todd W, you mean evidence that Richard Dawkins career as a science writer has the teensiest thing to do with evo-psy, Sociobiology?

Anyone who doesn’t know that already or who couldn’t google it is out of their depth and doesn’t have any business discussing it. The links I provided to the article about the festschrift and that one at 116 are sufficient to prove that point as is the citation of The Selfish Gene.

Now, where’s the evidence to back up the lie that Francis Collins promotes pseudoscience.

Anthony I think you might be fighting strawmen.

Scientists in any field, including the field of animal behavior, must generate predictive hypotheses that can be tested against competing explanations. What you describe –making up “just so” stories without any testing– is obviously not science.

titmouse, if I had a dollar for every time a new atheist has pulled out the phrase “straw man”, incoherently in an argument I’d be rich.

Identify exactly what you mean by “straw man” in the arguments I’ve made and explain how it is a “straw man”. “Straw man”, in the new atheist-“skeptic” vocabulary seems to mean “an argument or citation that is inconvenient to the NA-“skeptic” position”.

You boys need to find some new lines, those ones are becoming meaningless under your use of them.

I hate the fact that I find typos AFTER I hit post, even after using preview…

EVO-psy

MI Dawn

@Anthony McCarthy

you mean evidence that Richard Dawkins career as a science writer has the teensiest thing to do with evo-psy, Sociobiology?

Your claim that he is a proponent of evo-psy and largely responsible for its popularity, yes.

Anyone who doesn’t know that already or who couldn’t google it is out of their depth and doesn’t have any business discussing it.

It is not incumbent upon us to do your homework, namely, providing the proper citations.

The links I provided to the article about the festschrift and that one at 116 are sufficient to prove that point as is the citation of The Selfish Gene.

The quote from The Selfish Gene says absolutely nothing about evo-psy or prehistoric behavior. The link at 116 has nothing of Dawkins promoting evo-psy, but other people’s thoughts on his contributions to the subject. I haven’t had time, yet, to look through the festschrift stuff, but if it’s more third-party interpretations, then you still have failed to provide any evidence in support of your claim.

Now, where’s the evidence to back up the lie that Francis Collins promotes pseudoscience.

Well, since I didn’t make any claims about that (nor do I particularly care), I’m under no obligation to provide any. Perhaps you should address your question to Tort. Personally, if Collins is conducting good science, then he deserves whatever science awards he receives.

Now, come down off you high horse and talk to us in a civil manner. If you drop the condescending boorishness, perhaps people might take you a bit more seriously.

@Anthony Mc-doesn’t-bring-evidence

Firstly, you assert that most gnu atheists accept evo-psych, this is simply not true. I have never once in any discussion on pharyngula (which I would assume represents a pretty good sample of the gnus) seen someone bring up an evo-psych hypothesis that is not either presented as pure speculation or is criticized by other posters for not being presented as such. Skeptics in general find evo-psych to be a bastion of wild speculation and justification of cultural predjudices that can only provide some interesting discussion and hypothoses (much like some fields of philosophy).

Evo-psych is a very tricky field. It can be useful to use what we know about development, behavior, environmental conditions, and physiology to hypothesize about where our behaviors come from. We can even bring together multiple lines of evidence to come up with hypothoses that are very compelling. The point of divergence between most of us and evo-psych proponents is that the latter tends to treat their hypothoses as theories and their logic and speculation as evidence.

I would imagine that your biggest beef is with the gnus who speculate about the development of pattern and agency recognition in early humans related to the formation of religious ideas. No one would say for sure that we know where religion comes from, but this seems fairly plausible. In general, religion makes more sense as a psychological phenomenon than a supernatural one, regardless of the specific mechanism.

The problem is that you haven’t actually bothered to tell us about a point that you disagree with or cite statements from an actual person, and you only speak in generalities leaving us to guess(notice I use “imagine” at the beginning of the last paragraph, I truly do have to imagine what your point is because you fail to illuminate it for us). You also have failed to provide even one statement from Richard Dawkins to prove that he has anything more than a speculative stance towards evo-psych (unless that quote from the Selfish Gene was supposed to prove something, though it seems like a non sequitor to me).

And yet you keep telling me that I’m to thick to understand your arguments. Again, you go on and on without answering the simplest question: what the fuck are you talking about?

James Sweet:

Dawkins had apparently instructed Timonen to pay himself a certain amount, and Timonen seems to have paid himself more than that (though, I must say, not at all an absurd amount… $125k/yr for a webmaster in California — which I believe is what the amortized amount comes out to — is not outrageous by any means, though it would be unusually high for a non-profit to pay their webmaster, I should think).

Out of curiosity I looked up webmaster salaries in L.A. on salary.com: the 10th percentile is $52,000 and the 90th percentile is $101,300 for 2010, so it appears that Josh way overpaid himself going by current market rates.

Sigmund, I will bet you that less than one half of one percent of the population could identify anyone else on that list, I will bet you that not more than one percent of the college educated could. I’d add Cosmides and Tooby as being more significant in the formal literature of it, such as that is. Though, again, I’ll bet not one person in a hundred would know those names.

For you to pretend that Richard Dawkins is not a major figure in the dissemination of evo-psy among the college educated is amazing. It’s been one of my purposes in this to see how far you would go with that line. I wonder, since he’s obviously aware of what I originally said here, he hasn’t disavowed his role in it, relying on the Todd W’s and mikerattlesnakes to do that for him.

I’d like to hear it from him. Does he disavow evolutionary psychology/Sociobiology and the criticisms I’ve made of it here?

I’d be glad to get into his proposed patch, “memes” on another occasion, though he seems to have stepped back pretty far from that idea himself. As can be seen on many blogs the superstition has taken deep root in the middle to higher brow popular culture of the United States.

In the meantime, some of you guys might want to go expunge Dawkins’ name from the relevant articles at Wikipedia and see how long before it takes before it’s put back by people who aren’t trying to deny his role in it for the purposes of this blog brawl. Though I’d imagine a lot of the youngsters here won’t understand that a lot of that will be under “Sociobiology”, which is the discontinued name for it. You might have a harder time expunging it from numerous standard reference works because those use fact checking and professional editing.

@Anthony McCarthy

Do you really think that Dawkins is actively following this thread? Even if he is, do you think that you are really that important?

If you want his opinion on it, as I suggested earlier, why don’t you contact him directly, instead of posting on a blog, the main focus of which is not evolution.

And if you want to convince anyone else in this thread, then deliver the goods. All your bloviating just comes off as being a thick-headed, pompous blowhard of a broken record. Repetition does not make your assertions true.

So, again, put up or shut up.

The reason that I did not get involved with the whole Collins bit was because I thought others handled it rather well, pointing out that his particular religious beliefs have not appeared to play any significant role in the quality of the science for which he won awards.

My only reason for addressing you, really, is that you have, from the beginning, come off as a pompous ass who likes nothing more than to hear himself talk. Now, that may not be the case in reality, but all I have are your words here to go by.

It would really be quite simple for you to get people to shut up. All you would need to do is to show that Dawkins himself (not other third parties interpreting him) is promoting evo-psych. You have been asked for such numerous times, yet you never, ever answer the question. Instead, you simply repeat your arguments and complain about “new atheists” as if that had any actual bearing on the conversation or that it actually applies to anyone here.

In my own round-about fashion, I’m really just trying to help you form a more concrete argument. Instead of actually heeding anything I’ve said, however, you just take a condescending attitude and complain about everyone else.

You made a claim. You need to back up that claim. It really is as simple as that.

Nice dodge, Anthony.

I pointed out that there was no connection between the premise and the conclusion of your apparent syllogism, and you responded only to my analogy. Shall I conclude that since you agree that the claim about President Obama is nonsense, and you didn’t object to the analogy, that you are withdrawing your claim that the selfish gene equals evo-psy?

Or would you care to try actually either supporting that claim, or otherwise showing that Dawkins supports evo-psy?

Anthony’s beef with Dawkins is that he is an Atheist that dares speak out.

He hates all the Gnu Atheists.

Here’s an interview with Dawkins from 1997 from the evolutionist:

the evolutionist: Well, one area that’s experienced a lot of resistance is evolutionary psychology. What do you think of that method of applying evolutionary theory to human behaviour?

Dawkins: Well, I’m all for it. Given that you accept Darwinism at all, it seems to me to be obviously a sensible way to think about it.

the evolutionist: Are there any areas of it which you’ve found particularly interesting?

Dawkins: Not particularly, no. I like most of the stuff by Daly and Wilson, I think it’s very good. But I wouldn’t like to single out anyone in particular.

the evolutionist: Do you think that’s likely to have the same kind of problems getting its message across as you’ve had getting basic evolutionary theory across?

Dawkins: Yes, I think so. Not just the opposition from religious people, but also the political opposition. It’s had opposition since the mid-70s; from then on Wilson and his colleagues, including me, have been attacked by misunderstandings from the Left.

the evolutionist: Surely there’s quite a difference between the way evolutionary theory is used in evolutionary psychology, than the kind used in the less sophisticated areas of sociobiology?

Dawkins: So you say; it’s not obvious to me. Sounds like just a new name for the same subject. What do you think’s the difference?

the evolutionist: The main difference is surely the emphasis on psychology. While there’s always been some connection between genes on the one hand and psychology on the other, evolutionary psychologists have got a big brain in the middle which is ‘doing’ the behaviour…

Dawkins: I think that was always there. If you read On Human Nature, or Sociobiology itself actually, I think there’s been a brain in the middle all along.

the evolutionist: I remember reading On Human Nature and being mentally jarred by the leap from one to the other: “This behaviour is adaptive… so there must be a gene for it.”

Dawkins: It would have been mad to suggest that the intermediary between the genes and the behaviour was anything but the brain, so it’s not a major advance to stick it in explicitly. I don’t see how you could have made a behavioural genetics argument remotely plausible without going via psychology. What I detect as slightly new to me, in people who call themselves evolutionary psychologists, is the idea of the brain as a composite of semi-separate psychological organs or modules. Again, it had to be like that, but I find that shift of emphasis moderately helpful. But I think it’s awfully easy to exaggerate the difference between evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. I’ve always assumed the reason for the new name was public relations. A whole lot of people have been brought up to think that sociobiology is a dirty word, so we’d better have a new word. The phrase “behavioural ecology” was invented for exactly the same reason: to distance the subject from sociobiology, which in ignorant circles has been taken up as a sort of red-rag word.

the evolutionist: The subtitle of The Adapted Mind is “evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture”. Do you think there’s any kind of analogy between the notion of culture being an expression of these type of psychological mechanisms, and your idea of the extended phenotype?

Dawkins: I’d rather not push it I think.

the evolutionist: Then what do you think are the differences? Surely the argument is that there are various genetically based bits of brains that do things which the rest of us are witness to.

Dawkins: I find that my kind of paradigm examples are things like beaver dams and birds’ nests, where I’m trying to shake people into realising that you could have a “gene for” a certain shape of birds’ nest, just as surely as you could have a certain shape of beak. You could selectively breed for nest shape. You could do a Mendelian experiment. You could do an artificial selection experiment. You could take a hundred generations to breed weaver birds that make nests of a different shape. But if you take a cultural thing — say different styles of architecture around the world — I doubt very much that they are due to genetic differences, and I wouldn’t find it persuasive to suggest you could breed for different styles of architecture. Whereas I do think you can breed different styles of birds’ nests.

Anthony McCarthy seems very persistent in his assertion that Richard Dawkins is a/the prime mover behind the “evolutionary psychology” movement, based (apparently) on his reading of The Selfish Gene. Having read The Selfish Gene (admittedly, many years ago), I find myself not agreeing with Mr. McCarthy. Perhaps this is because my memories of what the book contains are selective or faulty, or perhaps it is because Mr. McCarthy has read too much into Dr. Dawkins’ book.

When I read The Selfish Gene, I took it to be an attempt to form a plausible (if somewhat difficult to test) hypothesis explaining the altruism (or apparent altruism) seen in some animals. In fact, there have been some studies trying to test the predictions made in The Selfish Gene, although my recollection is that their results were rather ambiguous.

Dr. Dawkins cannot help if some of those who believe in evolutionary psychology point to him and his book as the source of their inspiration (if that is true). Beyond that, I am not aware of anything that Dr. Dawkins has said that unambiguously supports evolutionary psychology. If Mr. McCarthy could point to some unambiguous passages in the books or public statements by Dr. Dawkins, perhaps I could better understand the source of his belief.

As a molecular biologist, I find the hypotheses of evolutionary psychology to be intriguing but largely untestable. However, they do make for interesting discussion and have, on occasion, indirectly led to some interesting and useful research. It would also be helpful – for me, at least – if Mr. McCarthy would more fully expound on his distaste for evolutionary psychology.

Finally, I’d be interested in hearing Mr. McCarthy explain his basis for apparently despising atheists, especially “new atheists”. Does he also dislike “old” atheists? What is it about atheism he finds so offensive, disturbing or threatening?

Now, I fully expect that Mr. McCarthy might reply with a stinging fusilade of insults and disparaging remarks, referring me to “Google” and claiming that I cannot participate in this discussion if I don’t know the answers to my questions. However, I hope that he will take my inquiries as an opportunity to clarify, expand and support the assertions he has made on this ‘blog.

Prometheus

Why yes, Anthony, I post over at Pharyngula quite often. People aren’t afraid to point out errors over there either, nor are they shy about asking for citations. Just like here. Now, why don’t you give Prometheus and the others the references that they have been asking you for?

And would you STOP with the atheist strawman already? As I said before, many of the posters here are NOT atheist. Heck they aren’t even all atheists at Pharyngula. But the theists at Pharyngula at least can construct decent arguments.

Fine. You win.

You have shown as much connection as there is between “I have a computer, therefore you should feed your pet iguana.” Now, what the *Y(P*)*(^()& connection is there between the selfish gene and evo-psy?

@anthony

I’m curious about your stance on Coyne: you say he’s a good writer and a scientist, but you strongly dislike him because he speaks out about atheism. This makes you sound like a bigot (you like atheists just fine as long as they shut up about it, sounds a bit like someone who likes gay people as long as they don’t “act all faggy”). Any thoughts on that?

I’m just going to read the brilliant rhetorical moves now. The Power Rangers of Sagan.

I could use a chuckle or two.

Mr. McCarthy responds:

“Prometheus, I only said he [Richard Dawkins] was responsible for popularizing it [evolutionary psychology].”

OK, fine. Then, could you expound on where Dr. Dawkins unambiguously popularises evolutionary psychology?

“I’d have thought something being largely untestable would be a big problem for something purporting to be science.”

If I recall correctly, The Selfish Gene was a popular book, not a textbook or a peer-reviewed paper. I didn’t assume that it was established science simply because it was shelved in the “Science Books” section at the bookstore.

“Maybe my mockery seems stronger than the mikerattlesnake, spurge stuff because it’s based in reality.”

Your “mockery” is neither stronger or weaker than anyone else’s – you just seem to use it as a first resort rather than trying to answer legitimate – if pointed – questions, much as you have with my fairly polite questions.

A bit of unsolicited advice: you might find your ideas receive a more sympathetic hearing if you don’t insult your audience as you present them. I’m trying to understand why you make the claims you do and you’ve done little apart from repeating your assertions and trying (unsuccessfully, I might add) to belittle my questions.

Like most people, I have little surplus time to spend trying to understand someone who refuses to communicate. If you have a point, make it. If not, well, continue to insult people and marvel at their inability to see the radiant logic of your pronouncements.

Prometheus

If I recall correctly, The Selfish Gene was a popular book, not a textbook or a peer-reviewed paper. Prometheus

I specifically, from the first time I mentioned Dawkins’ role in this as being a popularizer of it at comment 57

“Dawkins, especially, has had an unfortunate effect on biology, popularizing the introduction of the standards of the so-called sciences into what used to be a far more rigorous interpretation of actual data and physical evidence, turning it into story telling. And that practice has infected all kinds of academic fields, economics, one of the more disturbing. Though since his adaptationist religion began with Malthus, it’s a development that has some interesting features. It’s too bad that modern evolutionary science, which lacks narrative appeal, is at a disadvantage over that story telling. It will suffer from it, which is unfortunate.”

That entirely pedestrian statement was what got this going and what Dawkins apparently wasn’t sufficiently upset with that he scolded me to apologize for it, something he did with a comment made by another person here.

I wonder why you are singling out what I said as being sarcastic when there were things said by a number of people which are at least and in some cases more insulting and sarcastic than what I said. I’m not especially upset about it knowing that if you’re going to participate in blog discussion, that’s just something that happens. I decided a long time ago to not accept a double standard that new atheists try to establish in their favor.

Refuses to communicate. If there’s one thing I’ve never been accused of it was failure to communicate. Sigmund saw my challenge to tort to produce the evidence that Francis Collins promotes pseudo-science and he believed he could use it to get me into a duel with quotes, pretending to not know the role that Richard Dawkins has played in Sociobiology/evo-psy for at least thirty-four years. That role couldn’t be more widely known and obvious nor could his enormous influence in the culture and some branches of science and near science in, as the festschrift put it, “How a Scientist Changed The Way We Think”.

After a number of his obvious admirers here showed that they’re not especially aware of his claim to fame, I became curious to see how extensive their ignorance of him was. Which is a lot more interesting to me than getting into another futile contest in which, no matter how many quotes are produced, I’d be accused of “quote mining” “cherry picking” and the eternal dodge, mounting “straw men”. If there’s something predictable about the “skeptics” and new atheists, it’s how an argument against their position, based in fact, that doesn’t go their way will proceed. And I thought there was something more interesting to investigate.

I have to admit I was also curious to see if Dawkins would refute what I said or even just demand an apology. He doesn’t seem to have found what I said seriously inaccurate.

intercostal, that’s where a lot of Lewontin’s criticism of Dawkins’ work is based but I wouldn’t try to discuss it here because it would be even more difficult to explain to many of the commenters above. Though you are certainly right that his radical reductionism is rather problematic.

Dawkins, especially, has had an unfortunate effect on biology, popularizing the introduction of the standards of the so-called sciences into what used to be a far more rigorous interpretation of actual data and physical evidence, turning it into story telling.

…and that’s still bullshit, no matter how many times you repeat it.

ildi, go lecture the authors of that festschrift, then. I’ve seen nowhere that Richard Dawkins rejected that view of his career when expressed by them. You guys seem to be upset because I’m taking what they said seriously.

“You guys seem to be upset because I’m taking what they said seriously.”
Anthony, do you realize that the book you are linking to says virtually nothing of what your claim.
Have a look at the list of essay titles.
For a book about someone who is apparently (according to you) the founding father of evolutionary psychology and the aim of which is to show how he has influenced the world one might imagine that evolutionary psychology would be a major theme.
Alas no, only 5 out of 25 essays discuss topics that are even partially relevant to that field and some of those are either tangential or even directly opposing Dawkins ideas!
So the only evidence you are prepared to provide (and none of it actual first hand accounts of anything Dawkins has himself written about the field) demonstrates that evolutionary psychology is only a minor player in the topics influenced by Dawkins.

“I don’t like Coyne because, despite his writing ability and his impressive science he is an obnoxious bigot who isn’t above being dishonest in his polemical activity.”
I don’t suppose you would care to provide some evidence of…
Wait a second… Never mind. (What was I thinking!)

Mr. McCarthy, again:

“Dawkins, especially, has had an unfortunate effect on biology, popularizing the introduction of the standards of the so-called sciences into what used to be a far more rigorous interpretation of actual data and physical evidence, turning it into story telling.”

Funny thing, I’ve been in the biology “biz” since about the time The Selfish Gene was published, yet I haven’t seen the standards of the field decline into “story telling”. Perhaps this is because, as a friend once told me, “You can’t see the picture when you’re inside the frame.” However, I’d ask Mr. McCarthy to have pity on me and provide me with some indication, some tiny bit of evidence that the scientific standards of biology have been so altered.

I can’t speak to the “scientific standards” of economics, since it seems to be all story telling to me – both before and after Dr. Dawkins’ book was published. That’s probably a consequence of the old “hard sciences” vs “soft sciences” rivalry.

“I wonder why you are singling out what I said as being sarcastic when there were things said by a number of people which are at least and in some cases more insulting and sarcastic than what I said.”

I wasn’t aware that I had singled you out for being sarcastic. There are plenty of people more sarcastic than you on this ‘blog – occasionally, I am one of them. What I did say is that you seem to attack your questioners instead of informing them. A number of people – my humble self included – have asked you to support your claims with more than your assertions, but your response was to ridicule them for asking.

Again, if you have a point, make it; if you have answers, give them. If you’re just out to bask in the glow of your incandescent intellect, continue on your current path.

“If there’s one thing I’ve never been accused of it was failure to communicate.”

Past performance is never a guarantee of future achievements. You are certainly putting a lot of words onto this ‘blog, but it doesn’t appear to me that you are communicating your ideas very well. At the very least, you haven’t communicated them well to me, and I’m a sympathetic audience – I really want to know why you think Richard Dawkins supports/promotes/popularises evolutionary psychology.

If you would approach my questions as questions (which they are) instead of challenges to your authority, that might help you in framing your answers. I’m not saying that Richard Dawkins isn’t a supporter etc. of evolutionary psychology, I just don’t see that you’ve supported your assertions that he is. Help me to see the logic of your position.

“…the role that Richard Dawkins has played in Sociobiology/evo-psy for at least thirty-four years. That role couldn’t be more widely known and obvious nor could his enormous influence in the culture and some branches of science and near science in, as the festschrift put it, ‘How a Scientist Changed The Way We Think’.”

Again, just because someone is inspired to action by another’s writings doesn’t mean that those writings support that action. The writings of Charles Darwin have been cited as “inspiration” for any number of unsavory (and occasionally outright evil) actions, yet I doubt that Darwin would have supported – or approved of – any of them. At any rate, saying that evolutionary psychologists were inspired by Dr. Dawkins does not support the claim that he supports their position.

Also, saying that something is “widely known” isn’t much of an argument, especially to someone – like me – who apparently doesn’t know about this “widely known” fact. Again, it is entirely possible that I’ve neglected this area of public knowledge – would you be so kind as to show me how and where Dr. Dawkins has – again, unambiguously – been in active support of evolutionary psychology?

Oh, and a quick note: generally, when people claim that a “fact” in question is “widely known”, it is assumed that they are trying to shame their questioner into silence by indirectly accusing them of gross ignorance. This is a common high-school debating club tactic – one that is universally disallowed by the moderators. While it is true that some facts are so widely known that it is hard to find citations to support them, it is almost always a failure to use that argument to prove something that is in question.

“If there’s something predictable about the “skeptics” and new atheists, it’s how an argument against their position, based in fact, that doesn’t go their way will proceed.”

If you would provide the source of your “facts”, it might be more apparent that your critics are incorrect. Regrettably, the onus is on you to provide the data supporting your position, not the other way ’round. If you tell people to go out and dig it up on their own, they’re likely – based on a great deal of prior experience – to assume that it doesn’t exist.

This also points up your tendency to dismiss people’s argument based solely on their philosophy. Whatever “new atheists” means in your lexicon, you seem to automatically assume that their objections to your argument are based in bias rather than reason – a claim that leaves you open to the charge of “projection”.

So, Mr. McCarthy, you can either engage in a rational discussion – which would include “showing your work” – or you can simply marvel at the ignorance of those who dare to disagree with you. Your choice.

Prometheus

“It was sort of research. I found out what I wanted to. Not exactly but also not far off from what I expected.”

What a shock.

Dude shows up with sarcastic jabs at atheism, fails to engage with critics over the course of a discussion instead belabouring the same points without answering clear and pointed questions, leaves in a huff declaring his mission a success and his biases confirmed. Pretty much par for the course with the intellectually dishonest.

mikerattlesnake, a huff? No, I’m not leaving in a huff because I’m not emotionally involved in this argument, it was merely a matter of curiosity and idle amusement. And I’m not interested in what you guys think of me.

Brave, brave sir Robin.

Prometheus, you do know the irony of your resorting to Macbeth is that in that speech Macbeth is, essentially, denying a Christian conception of life in favor of something a lot closer to Hitchens’ or Randi’s or Jillette’s apparent philosophy of life. But, I tell a lie, I don’t think you know that.

Brave Sir Robin… geesh, you guys never get a new line do you.

Envoi to Richard Dawkins: They don’t seem to be very eager to defend radical adapatationism, do they. I think maybe you were right to bail out into a side line, though E. O. Wilson’s decision to try, try to preserve biological diversity was a far more useful and worthy one. It’s all the rage now, but, then, so was behaviorism within living memory.

AnthonyK, Orac is familiar with me and he knows that if he asks me not to post on his blog I won’t do it. Perhaps, as he’s clearly not troubled with the “unicorn farts” kind of discourse he’s willing to accept what I say. I’m not anti-atheist, having heartily endorsed a couple of atheists in this discussion. As can be seen in what I said about Coyne’s SCIENTIFIC work, I’m quite able to evaluate that without prejudice. His “Why Evolution is True, is a far, far better book than anything I’ve read of Dawkins or Dennett. But, then, he’s worked, actively, as a real biologist. I’m anti-bigot. Which is why I was mildly saddened to see he, himself, had used the same title for his bigoted, cookie cutter, bigotry filled, new atheist blog. Though, on this thread, I’ve mostly been anti- convenient fables-as-science.

I see you share the non-reading habits of most of Dawkins’ fans on this page.

I suspect that most of those ‘arguing’ with Anthony McCarthy did so in the knowledge of his well deserved reputation amongst skeptics. His general arguments have as much substance behind them as Tom Johnson. Anthony seems to think that he is winning the debate simply on the weight of his argument. Unfortunately he is laboring under the misapprehension that this phrase has something to do with the physical mass of his typing were it printed out – rather than whether it contains an actual point. Debating anything with Anthony is like testing out a rather lousy beta version of a Turing test program. You occasionally get replies that are kind of related to something close to a possible version of the question at hand, but nothing that would make an unbiased judge assume that there was any thought behind it.
Perhaps we have a new paradigm at hand to replace the Turing test-
‘The McCarthy Test’
The objective is to pose a question that elicits a reply from Anthony that could fool an unbiased observer into thinking it came from something with a consciousness rather than from a bad computer program.

The Courthouse News Service story began with the sentence “Evolutionary biologist and best-selling author Richard Dawkins claims an employee of his Foundation for Reason and Science embezzled $375,000 from the online store he ran for Dawkins’ charity, by claiming it made only $30,000 in 3 years.”

The complaint shows that sentence is false, since it says explicitly that Timonen was never an employee and always an independent contractor.

The CNS story also says: “But Dawkins says anything Timonen created for the Foundation was ‘a work for hire, commissioned and paid for by plaintiffs.’ Dawkins says he and the Foundation own the rights to everything Timonen created for them.”

But the complaint speaks only of oral contracts.

This presents a problem for RDFRS–there is a work-for-hire exemption to the rule that copyright is retained by the creator only if the creator is an employee or there’s a written contract.

Between the lack of a written contract and the admission in the complaint that RDFRS never saw any financial statement regarding the operation of their store until June 2010, despite only receiving a single payment in January 2008, how can anyone avoid inferring that RDFRS has been incompetently managed?

I was on the board of directors of the Internet Infidels, a tiny 501(c)(3) that receives far, far less revenue than RDFRS, but when we hired a part-time executive director, we hired an attorney to write the employment contract and we paid a payroll company to make sure that appropriate taxes were withheld. It sounds like RDFRS did none of this. It had been my impression from prior RDFRS statements that they had created their own tax-exempt entity for U.S. operations–perhaps they did for donation purposes, but why didn’t they use that entity to contract the relationship with the store and exercise some oversight?

Fittingly enough, #190 looks like a post by a bot that picked up the phrase “Turing Test” (though the use of “Turning Test” in the post indicates that the subject may be human).

the knowledge of his well deserved reputation amongst skeptics. Sigmund

Too skeptical for the “skeptics”, huh? I’d think Jim Lippard might acknowledge that we generally got along fairly well, not much screaming and name calling and the such. I commented at his place for a while back when I went by the pseudonyn olvlzl.

mikerattlesnake, I didn’t post that link to the article criticizing the Turing Test with you in mind, it’s moderately longish.

I’m going to really be interested in whether or not there’s a trial by jury, seeming to remember that’s one of those old fashioned things he wants to dispose of in favor of fiat by judges peering at MRIs.

I am also rather shocked at the sloppy business arrangement but since no one who will starve to death seems to have been injured it’s all the same to me. He should count his, uh, blessings. Consider what happened to poor Madeline Murray O’Heir. I kind of miss her.

ildi, you’re right. That’s more PZ blog style commenting. But I was taking my cue from Sigmund.

It’s always so interesting to be in the company of the Brights. No wonder science is in trouble.

Sigmund, elucidate your accusation that I made a death threat, who to and in my words.

I’m used to new atheists lying and distorting but usually they don’t do it so baldly when you can see the evidence without scrolling up the page. Of course your lie will become part of the rap sheet on me kept by the Champions of Rationalism from now on. Change a few words and you could work for Andrew Breitbart.

Amazing Anthony!
So now YOU are demanding evidence to back a claim!
Perhaps I should direct you to google – isn’t that what you usually do when asked to substantiate an accusation – it’s certainly what you’ve done throughout this thread.
Just a piece of advice, if you are ever involved in a thread where you are asking someone to answer your question, its never a good idea to make a creepy remark like your “consider what happened to poor Madeline O’Hair”.

@ Anthony

He should count his, uh, blessings. Consider what happened to poor Madeline Murray O’Heir. I kind of miss her.

You quote the name of an atheist who has been murdered, most likely for being an atheist, and you wonder why people you’ve been arguing with for more than 3 days think you are making death threats?
I could agree it’s quite a jump, but if your posts were, um, easier to understand, you may be less likely to run into this sort of mis-assumptions. I frankly cannot make sense of your 3 last posts. More likely because I am the one lacking the background, but you are the one who decided to publish your opinion here.
You know, that people don’t understand what you are saying is not a sign of your intelligence. It’s not that you are stupid either. Just that you are not clear.
I was 12-y old when I learned this truth. The hard way.

Seriously, what’s your point about Dawkins, evo-psy, life and the universe? So far, all you have done is resurrect the eternal debate about nature versus nurture, and not in a very clear way. I gathered that, according to you, Dawkins and theories about inherited behaviors are connected, atheists could be mean people, and not everything is encoded by DNA. Well, I agree on the last two (the 1st I have no idea about), but, so what? That’s not news.
It’s a bit hard to follow what you are arguing about.

It’s probably futile to post the link but, here.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol18/issue40/pols.athiests.html

I won’t post the link to something by her estranged son because it is heresay that can’t be verified, though you’ve got to wonder at her taste in employees.

I did mean it when I said I missed her. She could be funny and was colorful, if bigoted and vulgar. Lots less pretentious than the current crew.

Break’s over.

M O’B, I said what I said. Though I’m sure by the time you guys get done with it, I’ll have said what I didn’t say. Such is the integrity of fundamentalists of all stripe.

You know there are some of us who can chew gum and walk at the same time.

M O’B, you are being silly. Read what the Austin Chronicle said about the one instance and what the post says about the other and if you still don’t get it you might need some help with remedial thinking.

M O’B I’m faulting you for not having the research skills that a lazy 4th grader would have if you put the relevant material one finger click away. I’m not spending any more time coddling lazy Sci-blog dross.

So, did you read the Austin Chronicle file?

Maddy M. O’Hair her son and a grandaughter were done in by one of her crew at American Atheists over money and revenge, not because she was an atheist. Dawkins might have been ripped off by one of his associates, but that’s for a court to decide. I pointed out that Dawkins might have gotten ripped off but he’s still alive. Now, if only the new atheists here had bothered to know that much about the history of recent atheism you boys would not have assumed I meant any more than I said.

History is a lot more effective in telling you about human affairs than behavior sci.

Anthony McCarthy, there’s an XKCD comic that notes, “Communicating badly and then acting smug when you’re misunderstood is not cleverness.”

J.J.R. I wasn’t communicating badly, I assumed dedicated atheists would know the story of her murder. Not expecting them not to, I was curious about finding out about that. If people hadn’t made so much of that stupid Pew survey a few weeks back I probably wouldn’t be curious about it.

We’ve seen enough of each other in places like this for me to be surprised that you’d think I expect people here to think I’m clever. I’m not even interested in thinking about that, myself.

JJR. I didn’t mention genetic drift or even allude to it, though I could have if I’d thought it was relevant. Dawkins’ citation of a mention of it raised a couple of interesting issues but I left that for now. I only alluded to evo-psy in response to someone else who compared Dawkins to Sagan, Bronowski and Feynman. I only pointed out that the comparison had problems since both Dawkins and Sagans’ communications largely dealt in speculations on the fringes of science and not science. Of course, in the case of Sagan I meant “exobiology (about which we, actually, know absolutely nothing since we have absolutely no physical evidence of even one, single, organism of “other life”. And Dawkins speculations about life here isn’t based in physical evidence but in speculations about the forever lost behavior of unknown populations of our own species the extinct species of our ancestors. Since one of the new atheist-“skeptics” started complaining early in the process that my comments were long enough to tax their abilities, to no objection by the self appointed defenders of science, I don’t see how going into more detail would have helped. You see, I’m used to people knowing things about what they’re talking about and if they don’t know to look things up, especially if convenient links are provided.

It’s generally my assumption that the people who get into these discussions are adults, many of whom have finished high school, some of whom have finished college. I might be naive but by the time I’d finished high school I had been taught that if you don’t understand something because you didn’t know enough about it and you tried to find out more. We used to have to use a card catalog with actual cards, no automatic links (though there were tracings) and looking at indexes in actual books, etc. When hypertext links and automated search came in it seemed like no work at all to check for RELIABLE sources of information. But I guess that its being as simple as could be doesn’t mean that people understand those lost arts.

I mentioned my fascination about Dawkins’ fans in this discussion quite literally not knowing the first thing about his claim to fame, though I’ll bet many of them skimmed his God Delusion. Which had its problems with the scholastic arts, as well. In fact I revealed my motives in not getting into a “skeptics” style quote duel in favor of trying to knock information about that ignorance loose, well before this twist about the embezzlement and the murder of O’Hair and the others. When I was surprised to find out that the Brights here were in the dark about that as well and when they started flying off the handle, irrationally and baselessly saying I’d made death threats, I wasn’t in the mood to spoon feed it to them.

There are some very basic problems with your movement, one of those is many of its most ardent followers are pig ignorant. If you think I’m going to pass up the opportunities that presents, I’m not under any obligation to do so. Not when you boys are always going on about how clever your kind are.

Rrr, I posted a number of links. I didn’t do that because the color contrast was interesting to look at.

I’m becoming interested in the idea that what I’ve said is impeached because it’s not simple enough to fit into tweets. I’m unaware of a rule of logic, even in the abbreviated “skeptical”/ new atheist rules of logic, which says that the favorite whine of modern undergrads, “but that’s hard” constitutes a valid refutation. Though it might be fun to follow up on. Back in my day no self-respecting, first week Freshman would have made that plainte.

Freki, translate what I’ve said here into tweets Show us how it’s done.

Because links are SO much easier than to state succinctly what you want to say.
Posted by: Rrr

Are you 12?

Anthony McCarthy | October 29, 2010 5:24 PM:

Consider what happened to poor Madeline Murray O’Heir. [O’Hair, I presume] I kind of miss her.

Bad analogy, used to construct an argument from consequences.

llewelly, I wasn’t making an argument for anything at that point except that Dawkins’ alleged embezzlement could have been worse. Anyone who could fail to see the two examples of embezzlement by employees of atheist non-profits, by the respective “most famous atheists” of their time, as analogous for that purpose would fail to see anything.

“Bad analogy, used to construct an argument from consequences.”

I wonder if anyone might collect this kind of stuff and issue a book of fractured logic.

I wonder if anyone might collect this kind of stuff and issue a book of fractured logic.

Great idea, Anthony. You might begin by sourcing yourself for examples… But dont put aside your career in immensely important political work just yet — rather, you should continue to spout those biting, convincing one-liner soundbites that you do so well. I always said that links fit absolutely fantastically on placards, bumper stickers and cocards. Not to mention bullhorns.

No links to lectures and articles because you boys don’t like hard and long stuff.

“Indicate precisely what you mean to say. Yours sincerely, wasting away” /Beatles (No link, awfully sorry)

Dawkins’ expertise as a young scientist and more recently as an explicator of evolutionary psychology so lucid that he occupies the Charles Simonyi professorship for the public understanding of science at Oxford University.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4047

I’ve got to get back to work, but if that longer list of citations gets out of moderation, I’ve got tons more. Notice this one is from Dawkins’ own website, in a debate between him and Francis Collins. You’d think he or his people would have corrected it.

I do, however, seem to notice that just as “Sociobiology” was eclipsed as it became more controversial, that “evolutionary psychology” seems to be rather scarcer as time goes on in this record.

So, as far as I can tell, Anthony’s main points are:

Atheism is a tool for destroying decent morality and society.

Evolutionary psychology is a tool for destroying decent government and science.

Richard Dawkins is doubly a tool for being an atheist and popularizing evolutionary psychology.

Francis Collins, however, is a good scientist because he loves God and hates evolutionary psychology.

For those of you who find Anthony’s turgid opaque prose difficult to wade through, Massimo Pigliucci has an excellent podcast (25 minutes) of the problems facing evolutionary psychology:

You’ve heard the claims: men are inclined to cheat on women because natural selection favors multiple offspring from multiple mates, especially if you don’t have to pay child support. Even rape has been suggested to be the result of natural selection in favor of “secondary mating strategies” when the primary ones fail. Welcome to evolutionary psychology, a discipline curiously situated at the interface between evolutionary science and pop psychology, where both wild and reasonable claims seem to clash against the wall of an incredible scarcity of pertinent data.

The issue is not whether it makes sense to apply evolutionary principles to the study of human behavior. Of course it does, human beings are no exception to evolution. But the devil is in the details, and the details deal with the complexities and nuances of how exactly evolutionary biologists test adaptive hypotheses, as well as with the nature of historical science itself.

The Stevens Institute of Technology’s Center for Science Writings gives the distinction of popularizing evolutionary psychology to Steven Pinker in their list of Stevens 70 Greatest Science Books :

Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, 1976.
In the most original and influential of his many books, Darwin’s icily eloquent defender and extender introduces the theory of selfish genes, which remains as compelling and disturbing as ever. Dawkins’s biggest flaw is his haughtiness; his sentences all seem implicitly prefaced with the phrase, “As any fool can see…”

and

Pinker, Steven, How the Mind Works. Norton, 1997.
Thank God most scientists can’t write as well as Pinker, or we journalists would be out of jobs. Pinker popularized evolutionary psychology with this bestseller, which describes the mind as a grab-bag of adaptations designed by natural selection. But can you really know how the mind works without knowing how the brain works?

Hey Tony, don’t you have some very important election to promote, like you said? FYI, I am not eligible to vote in that one. To put it succinctly, like, that means it’s not mainly MY valuable time you have been wasting for the last week or so. Mmkay?

Aww, so sowwy, maybe you don’t even have a proper job to look after? Nevermind voluntarily putting the Sabot into teh Cogs of Demoncrazy, eh? Well, a “man”‘s gotta do etc.

Actually, you were quite thoroughly debunked a while ago by folks much smarter than you’n’me, in my humble opinion. So, what’s your next move — a whiff of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? /Beatles

Rrr, which point was debunked? That Richard Dawkins isn’t a figure in evo-psy/Sociobiology, because as his own website and his own YouTube channel show, that would seem to be news to him. The stuff about O’Hair’s murder? Because once I spoonfed the facts I’d linked to, that seems to have evaporated as a line of attack.

The Beatles, give me a break. I’ve never owned one of their records and I’m their age. Besides, I thought it was Pinker who was supposed to be the groovy one.

Richard Dawkins must be kind of dispirited if he’s aware of this thread, his adoring fans seem to be unfamiliar with his career in science and seem to want to get him away from his positions, despite hearing it in his own words. Apparently it’s a Just-so version of Richard Dawkins that they want so, so much to believe in instead of the real thing. Which should tell us a lesson about the gap between reality and desired reality. And that’s with abundant evidence that can be, not only observed but also articulated from the horses’ mouth. It’s quite possible to create an extended scenario that is way off. Unobserved behavior is so prone to achieving deceptive results, especially when the wider context, the constructed habitat, if you will, is also unavailable for close observation.

Anthony McCarthy writes:

I could go on forever …

Finally, a claim supported by evidence.

Oh, and, in a probably futile attempt at cutting them off at the pass, maintaining that the meta-adaptive tale of our pre-historic ancestors isn’t behind that string of bigotry in that last YouTube will only be evidence of the fundamental ignorance of so many of the fan boys of what evolution is. Some of them seem to be unaware that it didn’t begin with someone called Darwin but, actually, is about the actual living beings in the vast, pre-historic past. For so many of them it’s more in the nature of being a sports team supporter than it is in actually knowing much about it. But that’s for another blog brawl.
So much of evo-psy and its practices have seeped into our thinking and those tales are so well entrenched that they go unsaid, though they are an intrinsic part of the logic of those adaptive fables. So much so that even Gould, on one occasion that I know of, lapsed into its near use, though H Allen Orr noticed it and called him on it in his review.

http://bostonreview.net/BR24.5/orr.html

Lazy Sigmund. Clearly you didn’t read that article pointing out problems with the Turning test, one of which was that neither the computers or the testers could handle issues of complexity in a wider context. NAs are often more of like an Eliza bot, as I used to tell one over in the Discovery blogs.

I suppose, in keeping with “skeptical”/NA norms of rhetorical discourse I’m supposed to add a vulgar equivalent of, “So there!”