Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[Svartalf]

I just want to make a brief but important point here: Richard wouldn't be taking Josh to court if he could have managed to settle it out of court with him. His lawyers would have advised no less. This is, with a high degree of probability, something that has been escalated to this level due to a failure to resolve the matter at lower levels - a failure either for Josh to concede to Richard, or convince him of his case. And Richard wouldn't have raised it to this level unless he felt that he did have a case, and was aggrieved enough to push it.

I don't find it plausible that Timonen is entirely innocent, and that the case against him is built merely on hearsay and gossip, or someone in RDF's poor arithmetic. Even if he is eventually deemed LEGALLY in the clear - I would be extremely surprised to see him "vindicated" in any other real sense of the word…

which would explain why josh's name was taken down from the RD site nearly a month ago rather than last thursday.

[Trolldor]

Wouldn't surprise me to find that Richard was unwilling to compromise either.

Have Agenda.
Will dog.

[JimC]

If you read classical mythology you see that good intentions are the source of great tragedy. The real cause of this, I think, is Dawkins' hubris. When someone does not miss 300k then that someone is distracted. The flip side of innocence is arrogance. That is why he was so easily able to trample on people, he had a just cause. The tropes and lessons in Greek mythology speak to events like this, and Dawkins is a fool for taking on his own personal Oedipus in Timonen.

I think Richard's next book seems to ably display his inability to understand mythology. All he sees it as is a failed pre-scientific explanation of the world rather than a reliable mirror of the human condition. As I've said ad nauseam, this episode and many others point to a man severely lacking in social intelligence, an ironic failing for an ethologist methinks!

Good point, although to me, "failed pre-scientific explanation of the world" and (partially) "reliable mirror of the human condition" are not mutually exclusive descriptors...

But he can be somewhat one-dimensional in his thinking...

[klr]

The parasitic life-forms commonly known as lawyers will gorge themselves full well...

I believe RD is partial to a certain quote from Henry VI, Part II:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

[JimC]

The parasitic life-forms commonly known as lawyers will gorge themselves full well...

I believe RD is partial to a certain quote from Henry VI, Part II:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Needs must, when the devil drives...

[kiki5711]

RDFvTimonen.pdf page 18

I think they have 30 days to respond. Anyone knows if the "Answer to the Complaint" has been filed. This is where we'll find out the juicy stuff.

[lordpasternack]

Not sure about that TMH - from what I gleaned from Richard from previous experience, he's pretty litigiously phobic. He dislikes "that sort of thing", as it were - hence particularly why he is likely going to have a difficult time in court because most or all of his agreements/contracts with Timonen were verbal, and now blowing in the wind…

I really don't think Richard would take this step lightly - particularly given the predictable schadenfreude and bad PR for RDFRS that would tend to flow hence.

Edit: klr got in there before me.

[Feck]

I does seem almost impossible to accept Timmeh!'s explanation that he has been turned on by a friend ,that would imply that firstly Richard and the foundation told Josh that he was welcome to keep any money he could make from the shop .I can't see a charitable foundation doing that even if Richard himself did !
Then even if this were the case why would Richard and the foundation bring this to light in public with a court case ?
Back to a point I made earlier Has Josh decared all this extra income to the IRS ? I would have thought that independant of any verbal aggreement between the parties of this civil lawsuit then the charities commission should be investigating how 'profits' and lots of them were taken from a registered charity .

[Psi Wavefunction]

Dawkins' attack on fantasy and mythology really irritates me – maybe HE can't do good science and appreciate fictional stories, but most of us actually have that ability. Imagination is a wonderful thing, and ironically enough, neither reason nor science could ever happen without it. Most of us can separate the real and imagined; IIRC, schizophrenia is characterised by not being able to do exactly that.

Eg., when you watch a movie, you're well-aware that what's on screen isn't actually "real" in the sense of you being involved with the scene. And yet, you can feel every sensation of fear or joy or lust or rage if the film makers did a good job – you can thank your mirror neurons for that!

Incidentally, mirror neurons are also involved in 'social navigation', if you will. It actually makes sense that Dawkins seems to fail at appreciating stories AND "has the social intelligence of a sponge" (sorry, forgot who said that). I bet he leans heavily to the autism end of the autistic-schizophrenic continuum...

[Atheist-Lite]

Dawkins' attack on fantasy and mythology really irritates me – maybe HE can't do good science and appreciate fictional stories, but most of us actually have that ability. Imagination is a wonderful thing, and ironically enough, neither reason nor science could ever happen without it. Most of us can separate the real and imagined; IIRC, schizophrenia is characterised by not being able to do exactly that.

Eg., when you watch a movie, you're well-aware that what's on screen isn't actually "real" in the sense of you being involved with the scene. And yet, you can feel every sensation of fear or joy or lust or rage if the film makers did a good job – you can thank your mirror neurons for that!

Incidentally, mirror neurons are also involved in 'social navigation', if you will. It actually makes sense that Dawkins seems to fail at appreciating stories AND "has the social intelligence of a sponge" (sorry, forgot who said that). I bet he leans heavily to the autism end of the autistic-schizophrenic continuum...

Autism? You haven't met many? I would rather go for situational ascquired narcissism (SAN) which can compromise social persepctives. That aside, I do see what you mean and how it is imperative in all fields but especially science to have a rich vivid imagination.

[lordpasternack]

Some of this Dawkins-bashing is a bit unfair, and unsubstantiated. He has spoken of his love for fiction before - commented that some of the myths in his upcoming book are "beautiful" as works of art/literature - and even when he was frankly quotemined over the Harry Potter incident, his speculation that certain types of fiction might predispose certain types of irrational thinking, was exactly that: speculation. He didn't even come up with it of his own accord IIRC - it was an idle question put to him by a journalist.

Also - he indulged his daughter's childhood belief in santa and the tooth-fairy. He really isn't the robotic, one-dimensional, over-analytical twat that he's being painted out to be here.

I hope you'll forgive me for being a bit too busy to source all this stuff right at this minute. You'd find it with some Googling or a search of his comments on his site and old forum, if you really want to.

He's fucking naive, abysmal at management, and trusting to a fault (a flaw he's openly identified in himself particularly with respect to the "stumped" videos) - but he doesn't deserve some of the sideswipes he's getting here.

[Psi Wavefunction]

Not clinically autistic, but leaning towards that end, yes. There is accumulating evidence that non-clinical autism/schizophrenia are opposite ends of a continuum. Most people are average, maybe a little off to one side or another but not much of a problem. Some people are on the very extremes, and that's clinical. I don't think Dawkins is that far. Being an egotistical narcissistic maniac can also be somewhat related, but also caused by other factors.

To me, Dawkins is a perfect example of what NOT to do once you acquire a considerable level of success. Personally, I can't even understand why one would want to engage in nasty politics in their senior years (the guy's almost 70, FFS!), rather than quietly retiring or staying as a prof emeritus (in academia you actually get the option to work until you drop, no forced retirement in normal situations AFAIK) and just doing what then enjoy. Without politics. There's no point anymore, 'cause you don't need to get ahead! In any case, the path Dawkins chose is not a happy one. Perfect example of a demise of a successful science writer/scientist.

[Psi Wavefunction]

lp, it is agreed he's a great writer. And that is part of why there's considerable resentment towards him from his own academic field – the other reason being that his own field's mainstream views changed considerably since he stopped being actively involved. And while he writes well and, ironically, quite imaginatively, it's the shit he says in public that his loyal supporters buy and get carried away with. Again, politics. I guess another main reason we resent him is that we don't really want a spokesperson – both evolutionary biology and atheism are diverse fields involving very diverse communities with many conflicting opinions, arguments, etc. When one comes out to the top and speaks for all without giving much respect to the theories they disagree with (as Dawkins is wont to do – both in atheism and evolutionary biology. His dismissal of drift has pretty much the entire molecular biology and popgen communities actively facepalming away...), there will naturally be icky feelings involved.

Usually people aren't as extreme or rigid in person as they are in their speeches (making absolutely statements gathers a lot more attention than "oh, perhaps maybe this thing could be some factor"), so I'm sure he's not actively against imagination. But he sure makes it sound like he is, and people buy it.

[lordpasternack]

I'm aware of the continuum in autism and schizophrenia, Psi - and I too skirt the borderlines of yer Asperger Syndrome in certain respects. As for the rest, I really don't think you should be presupposing the necessary expertise to psychoanalyse Dawkins, really. And for the record even I have argued/done Richard's head in in the past over certain matters…

[Ilovelucy]

I wouldn't go as far as saying RD has autism or schizophrenia. Simply put, I don't think he's a great judge of character and this is probably down to a comparative lack of social intelligence that manifests in other things that he has said. Don't doubt his brilliance for a second in other regards.