Science good. Tree pretty.

[rich_jacko]

Given the number of Dawkins-related posts on my Friends list, and the rumours that he is supposedly less rabid this time around, I thought I'd give his new mini-series a go.

Er, it wasn't exactly anything special, was it? I thought it was a very empty programme, in which all Dawkins seemed to do was go, "Look folks, isn't astrology silly! Look folks, isn't dowsing silly!"

Apart from two minutes of Pavlov's pigeons, he made no attempt at figuring out why people turn to the weird and wacky, or why they feel disillusioned with science (Something to do with "feelings" being trendy, apparently. Nothing to do with science being perceived as difficult or geeky.) No proper debate, though I was quite amused by the medium who pointed out that Dawkins wasn't saying anything a hundred other people hadn't said before. I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking this ;o)

His parting shot was slightly scary. Apparently, the interwebs are evil because they let people share ideas which aren't approved of by the Dawkins Thought Police. Didn't you realise that the interwebs are to blame for the MMR scare? If only we'd all listened to the scientists. Apart from the ones who started the MMR scare, of course. They probably weren't even proper scientists. I bet they were Sagittarians.

Next week: Richard Dawkins points and laughs at some kids as he tells them there's no Father Christmas.

Comments

[glitterybint.livejournal.com]

grrr, Dawkins makes me so angry! I was shouting at the telly for most of the program. He makes scientists look bad!

Oh, and it was skinner's pigeons, not pavlov.

[rich-jacko.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I couldn't remember whose pigeons they were. But it was a simlar enough experiment to Pavlov's dog, and I liked the alliteration :o)