Amazon.com Widgets

« A Voice Goes Silent: Christopher Hitchens 1949-2011 | Main | Gypsy wonders how many are looking toward spring? »

Links With Your Coffee - Tuesday

Coffee Cup

I'm holding all comments for approval for a couple of days while I investigate some possible malware on the site. If you get redirected or encounter other suspicious activity send me an email letting me know exactly what you were doing when it happened.

Dawkins-Josh Timmon Lawsuit

I never heard the outcome of the case until now. Josh sent me an update . The case was dismissed with prejudice which if I recall correctly means it can't be refiled. Okay, I'll look it up, yep, A dismissal with prejudice is dismissal of a case on merits after adjudication.The plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim. In short Dawkins made the accusation, but couldn't prove his case.

We all do it. In fact, we are generally very good at it. Smart and educated people are better at it.

Joe Nickell has been a working skeptic for a long time, and I am very happy to call him a friend. In writing this post I am reminded of something he said to me that struck me as particularly insightful - (paraphrasing) cynicism is a cheap form of skeptical one-upsmanship. In other words, it's easy to seem more skeptical than then next guy just be being more cynical. True skepticism, however, is hard intellectual work.


 

Comments

Why do you think Dawkins made such an accusation?

Josh Timmon? Is this another lawsuit or is this the Dawkins v. Joshua Timonen lawsuit?

And speaking of Dawkins, what's your take on the Dawkins vs. Skepchick dust up from a few months ago? Maybe you've touched upon it, but I don't recall seeing anything. Here's a recap:

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

I was in the thread(s) where Dawkins made those comments. It wasn't really "Dawkins vs. Skepchick" (Rebecca Watson). It was Dawkins making a very unfortunate first comment and then two ones that didn't help at all. The original threads are at Pharyngula, if not linked in that article you posted.

Whatever was said after that in mainstream blogs like Gawker, probably are exaggerated claims; as far as I know Dawkins only made three comments on the subject at Pharyngula, then the male-rights activists took over. I recommend you don't read the articles about it, just go to the first Pharyngula thread, it's all very repetitive, with people constantly misconstruing what happened and exaggerating what Watson stated.

Oh. And why is my comment being held for approval?

Anything I could say would be mere speculation, I don't have any inside knowledge. My best guess, yep a guess, is that Dawkins thought the charges were true. Probably the relationship was not defined very well, and his and Josh's understanding of their agreement was different. Add to that poor record keeping and you have all the ingredients for such a kerfluffle.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives