Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Szymanowski


101. I suppose it's due ('Expelled' review)

Comment #147985 by Szymanowski on March 21, 2008 at 5:55 pm

A comment from someone who supposedly lost their job over ID would be followed by a clip from Planet of the Apes, with an ape water-hosing Heston and calling him a freak.

Ironic considering that the [non-human] apes in Planet of the Apes are basically a caricature of religious idiocy. But, I suppose, if you see everything through some kind of fundie filter, the world must look very different...

102. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #145808 by Szymanowski on March 18, 2008 at 6:54 am

There is an introduction by Richard of about half a page per article, plus a short introduction to the book, so close to 50 pages by him.


Alright then... I suppose it'll have to go on my wish list!

103. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145616 by Szymanowski on March 17, 2008 at 7:39 pm

I agree entirely with Petermun:

"A rigorous atheist cannot console in a time of grief" - what absolute tripe. When first wife died 6 years ago I found many of those with faith who tried to console me made things so very much worse - it was those without faith who were the greatest consolation - and the most "real".


But mostly I agree with irate_atheist:
cuntbone

104. The Great Tantra Challenge

Comment #145608 by Szymanowski on March 17, 2008 at 7:27 pm

100 points for effort to the tantrik.

(-1000000 points for the epic pwnage)


Still, I'm sure there'll be the protest, "It doesn't work when it's filmed for TV".

105. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #145432 by Szymanowski on March 17, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Adding to the typesetting complaints: that's a bloody big "RICHARD DAWKINS" on the cover if he's a mere editor... but I suppose OUP knows how to sell books, and I mustn't judge by covers...

How much Dawkins is there in the book?

106. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #142304 by Szymanowski on March 12, 2008 at 9:34 am

squinky

I for one am getting sick of these type of "science" articles. They have all these grandiose future claims of treating disease with nanobots.
Give me a quotation from the article in which it or one of its subjects claims that disease will be treated in the future using nanobots, and I'll agree with you. The article is largely concerned with computers, and merely refers at its outset to some superficial hypotheses regarding medicine.
I'm a Ph.D chemist who is qualified to comment here
We are all equally qualified to comment - it's the internet and your authority will be revealed in your words, not your academic record.

Regarding your STM comment, did you read the whole article or not?
However, according to Professor Andrew Adamatzky of the University of the West England (UWE), making a workable computer would be very difficult at the moment.

"As with other implementations of unconventional computers the application is very limited, because they operate [it] using scanning tunnel microscopy," he said.

But, he said, the work is promising.

"I am sure with time such molecular CPUs can be integrated in molecular robots, so they will simply interact with other molecular parts autonomously."

107. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #142040 by Szymanowski on March 11, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican body which oversees confessions and plenary indulgences said: "You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour's wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos"

So now it's morally wrong to do something which is 'morally debatable'?

108. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132880 by Szymanowski on February 25, 2008 at 11:04 am

"Disbelief" is an interesting take - is it merely for alliteration, or has it been chosen as different to "non-belief"?

It is the book that every person of faith should read--and give away.
At first I thought that said "throw away". I must be horribly biased!

Let's not judge a book by its cover...

109. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132412 by Szymanowski on February 24, 2008 at 6:06 pm

This - as an argument against Dawkins's views - is hilarious. I don't even know where to begin. I'm trying to find refutations in Debate Points as it seems to be a variant on the transcendental argument, the science makes faith claims and the atheism is dogmatic claims, and the anything goes argument.

110. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132229 by Szymanowski on February 24, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Very interesting interview (although the final question was utterly random).

It is worth pointing out that Turok's ideas aren't that widely supported. There are problems; for example, the arrangement of the branes which would allow for a cyclic system looks like another "fine tuning" issue! Inflation may have problems, but the principle of inflation seems to come naturally from many ideas of how the physical forces work.


It's also worth pointing out that 99.9999% of the world (hopefully) doesn't understand a word of this!

111. Whale Evolution

Comment #131280 by Szymanowski on February 22, 2008 at 7:11 am

Right. Next, please explain how bananas are actually fish :)

Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather:

Ponder Stibbons: "Botanically, [the banana is] a type of fish, sir. According to my theory it is cladisticaly associated with the Krullian pipefish, sir, which of course is also yellow and goes around in bunches or shoals."

112. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131274 by Szymanowski on February 22, 2008 at 6:56 am

Unfortunately the report isn't very clear, and the data is all incorporated into the prose. It's definitely about "religion" rather than "belief in God", but in other respects it's very vague.

However, other surveys and opinion polls, which measure "belief" or "practice", rather than "religious affiliation", produce significantly lower figures for the Christian denominations. In 2007, approximately two-thirds of the British either did not claim membership of a religion or said that they never attended a religious service, compared with 26 per cent in 1964. Amongst those who do actually claim to belong to a religion, the proportion who attends a Christian service regularly has been falling. Another 2007 research report on churchgoing in the United Kingdom indicated that 15.5 per cent attend a service at least once a month whereas 28 per cent were former churchgoers unlikely to return and 32 per cent have never been to church and are unlikely to do so. In comparison to Great Britain, there are significantly more regular churchgoers than average in Northern Ireland, i.e. 45 per cent attending a religious service at least once a month. Surveys have also revealed that religious belief is strongly related to age and generations, with young people far less religious than their elders. Furthermore, the total number of people affiliated to non-Christian religions has increased in recent years and for most of them their religion seems to be a more important factor than it is for Christians.

113. 'Frog from hell' fossil unearthed

Comment #130300 by Szymanowski on February 20, 2008 at 8:30 am

114. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129504 by Szymanowski on February 19, 2008 at 8:25 am

I would have thought that the fact that there is such a discrepancy in belief between, say Sweden and the USA, or between 18th Century England and modern-day England, that the 'nature or nuture' question has an obvious answer. Why are they throwing money at such a redundant topic?

I think that perhaps you are confusing belief in a supernatural deity with the particulars of different religions. It is obvious that "nurture" outweighs "nature" in this sense, but I don't think it's as obvious as the central belief, belief in God. There was a section about this in TGD, remember?
"Belief in God" - i.e. any god - varies massively from region to region too. I can see it's not as easy a question as particular religious affiliation, but it does seem rather obvious that atheism vs theism is a matter of nurture. Us cynics might say that it's a case of whether children are well educated in reason...

115. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129497 by Szymanowski on February 19, 2008 at 8:09 am

HA! The Templeton Foundation! And a psychologist who has explained his conclusions in detail before doing the experiments!

I'm glad it's not my £1.9m

116. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128636 by Szymanowski on February 17, 2008 at 1:36 pm

I don't understand the title of this article - it wasn't mentioned in the main text. Can anyone explain it?!

117. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128511 by Szymanowski on February 17, 2008 at 9:13 am

This sounds great, but wasn't it predicted that we'd all be taking holidays on the moon and having tea parties with little green men by 1975?

118. My Saudi Valentine

Comment #126630 by Szymanowski on February 13, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Ten years ago, though, before the Internet and cellphones, we had less room to maneuver. Guys took their chances by handing out their land-line numbers to any nearby female, just in case there was an eligible young woman hidden under that shapeless abaya and niqab. I remember my mother yelling at boys who would knock on our car window and "number" her â€" offer her cards with their home numbers.


Yes, that niqab thing really does the job of stopping men feeling desire, doesn't it...

119. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #125739 by Szymanowski on February 12, 2008 at 12:56 am

Gethsemane:

Postmodernism is nothing but the negative rejection of these things, and is therefore not a "positive" body of theory on its own


The main problem, in my field at least, is that deconstruction sets up targets made of nothing but straw. We are assured that these meta-narratives exist and that, say, scientists of the modern era unquestionably believed in the truth of their discoveries. A 19th-century poem might be deconstructed for its sexist perspective against women, which is fine, but the deconstruction is supposedly legitimised by its specious claim that no other readers of the poem had discovered this heinous crime by the author. Deconstruction attempts to identify itself as going against commonly accepted beliefs, yet in doing so often falls flat on its face.

edit: oh dear, I was very tired when I wrote that!

alice_bell:
There is some value in postmodernism, at least as it relates to literature, hidden behind the waffle. This is perhaps due to the fact that, if you reduce postmodernism down to intelligible language, nothing of what it says about reading or writing is actually new. Mostly it goes on about literature not reflecting the real world. Obviously that is a truism; human experience is not a narrative. Similarly, it's a mistake to think that the self-reflexive kind of writing we term 'postmodern' is entirely innovative and cutting-edge and clever. Tristram Shandy is a postmodern novel.

Postmodernism in a broad sense is not worthless, just obvious. There are some narcissistic wackos linked to it, and their fringe theories have, unfairly, given the 'movement' a reputation for absurdity and silliness. Intelligent students of the arts, however, are surely able to pick out the useful aspects of postmodernism from the ludicrous. Moderation is the key, as with all things.
Excellent summary!

120. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125304 by Szymanowski on February 11, 2008 at 8:08 am

I'm sure Hitchens is accused of being "strident" and "forthright"... although in this debate at least he was extremely calm, quiet and considered relative to his fiercely impassioned, hand-waving opponent.

121. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125282 by Szymanowski on February 11, 2008 at 7:21 am

How about Calilasseia?!





(probably too shrill, actually...)

122. Conservative Rabbis to Vote on Resolution Criticizing Pope's Revision of Prayer

Comment #124797 by Szymanowski on February 10, 2008 at 9:39 am

From Red Dwarf

Holly: "And Cloister spake, "Lo, I shall lead you to Fyushal, and there we shall open a temple of food, wherein shall be sausages and doughnuts and all manner of bountiful things. Yea, even individual sachets of mustard. And those who serve shall have hats of great majesty, yea, though they be made of coloured cardboard and have humorous arrows through the top."
Lister: Does it say what happened to the rest of the Cats?
Holly: Holy wars. There were thousands of years of fighting, Dave, between the two factions.
Lister: What two factions?
Holly: Well, the ones who believed the hats should be red, and the ones who believed the hats should be blue.
Lister: Do you mean they had a war over whether the doughnut diner hats were red or blue?
Holly: Yeah. Most of them were killed fighting about that. It's daft really, innit?
Lister: You're not kidding. They were supposed to be green.

Holly: "And Cloister gave to Frankenstein the sacred writing, saying, 'Those who have wisdom will know its meaning.' And it was written thus: 'Seven socks, one shirt -'"
Lister: That's me laundry list! I lined the cat's basket with me laundry list!
Holly: The Blue Hats thought it was a star chart leading to the promised land.

Lister: This is terrible. Holy wars. Killing. They're just using religion as an excuse to be extremely crappy to each other.
Toaster: So, what else is new?

123. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123558 by Szymanowski on February 7, 2008 at 10:48 am

It seems such a monumentally stupid thing to say that I suspect RW isn't being sincere. Might this be a cunning plan by the Archbishop to stir up some extra anti-Muslim sentiment?

124. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121438 by Szymanowski on February 3, 2008 at 12:03 pm

I'm a bit puzzled as to how The Telegraph has an apparent quotation in its headline: 'disobey hygiene rules', though it doesn't attribute this to anyone else in the article. 'Disobey' doesn't characterise correctly what the actual conflict was - the actual problem was 'objections' and 'difficulty in complying' - the headline smacks of old-fashioned media sensationalism to me.

What would be wrong with, say, sterilised long gloves which the doctors in question must pay for themselves? (i.e. either roll up your sleeves or buy gloves)

How would that solution be worse than letting young doctors quit?

125. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #120051 by Szymanowski on February 1, 2008 at 8:04 am

Happy birthday Josh! Ooh, the front page has been AJAX-ed. Richard - nice card... at least you're the most computer-literate Oxford lecturer I've met!

126. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117048 by Szymanowski on January 28, 2008 at 6:48 am

Harris can slide between the terms "faith" and "religion", but his sophisticated treatment of spirituality makes it clear that his real target is the dogma of faith.

Dawkins and Hitchens are the two who most often conflate religion and faith in their use of language


Well, I thought it was absolutely 100% clear that their real target was the dogma of faith, as they have stated repeatedly, but perhaps some people can be slow on the uptake...!

127. Banks are helping sharia make a back-door entrance

Comment #116682 by Szymanowski on January 27, 2008 at 5:13 am

All that's happening is that banks, which are private companies, are offering MORE CHOICE in their "products".

Now, I take a rather low view of the banking industry, but equating MORE CHOICE with the imposition of Sharia Law on the population is just silly. Nobody's being forced into anything.

Seconded.

I fail to see the need to bend over backwards to Muslims, of which this is yet another example of.

It's an example of providing a product to suit a market. It's called capitalism, not "bending over backwards". For goodness's sake, if you don't like "sharia" accounts, don't get one!

I'm just waiting for a bank to provide a "Szymanowski" account, in which you deposit a minimum of 1p and get 100,000,000% interest. Your name has to be Szymanowski in order to qualify for the account.

128. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116678 by Szymanowski on January 27, 2008 at 4:17 am

Hah, fantastic caller!

129. Interview with Ian McEwan

Comment #114215 by Szymanowski on January 21, 2008 at 2:56 pm

America is meant to be a secular republic with a strong tradition of upholding all freedom of thought
Joseph McCarthy would disagree!

130. Violence fear over Islam film

Comment #113602 by Szymanowski on January 20, 2008 at 6:48 am

"freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend"

Oh yes it bloody well does!

But Wilders is being an idiot (pending viewing of the video) - there's nothing to be gained from burning a copy of the Koran unless you're freezing on a mountain top.

131. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113592 by Szymanowski on January 20, 2008 at 6:25 am

Classic Daily Mail standards of reporting, but it could have been worse.

Wait a minute, does that rhesus monkey have painted fingernails?!

132. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106864 by Szymanowski on January 3, 2008 at 3:42 pm

"Let me tell you, I am getting tired of this negative campaigning," the actor said.


Er. Do his supporters not see the irony in this statement?

133. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101860 by Szymanowski on December 21, 2007 at 3:20 am

I'd love to see Hitch hit this guy over the back with a metal chair.

:)

134. This Week's Flea

Comment #100421 by Szymanowski on December 18, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Presumably the publisher can say to Xian bookshops: "Stock this... or be judged".

135. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #100022 by Szymanowski on December 18, 2007 at 5:07 am

I'm not sure HD is necessary for four blokes chatting around a table. I'm not even sure that video is necessary for this, but I don't want to piss on your parade! Thanks for providing the clip and keep up the good work - this site is much appreciated!

*toddles off to download the audio version*

136. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #72291 by Szymanowski on September 20, 2007 at 4:50 pm


This really is great news for the UK and the USA, but what can we do here in Australia.
We are experiencing the same growth of evangelistic movements (Hillsong) directed at the gullible youth of our great nation.
How can the RDF help save Australia from the scourge of society that threatens the truth being told.


What a shame. Especially in a land of such amazing 50,000-year-old stories about the Dreamtime, surely far more fulfilling and much more relevant to Australia than that dull new book about somebody being nailed to a tree in Israel 2,000 years ago.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3