American Humanist Association withdraws Richard Dawkins' Humanist Of The Year award

[lomiller]

That isn't what we were talking about, though. The question under discussion is whether twitter is a good place to initiate academic discussion on controversial topics, and whether this is what Dawkins was actually trying to do with his tweet.

Is Dawkins notable for academic discussion in the first place? He didn't win the AHA award for academic discussions the won if for positions he expressed in the media and popular press.

Discussions are what you make them. You don't even need to discussion them with Dawkins directly, you can discuss them elsewhere with other people entirely and I really don't have much sympathy for the argument that "I can't have a discussion about this because it was first raised on twitter."

However, I don't think they are in any position to actually persuade Dawkins.

Again, though. This isn't really any different than the positions that won him the award in the first place.

 

[tyr_13]

Again, though. This isn't really any different than the positions that won him the award in the first place.

Again, yes it is. And again, trying to give him way more benefit of the doubt on the specific example doesn't really address the body of work he has created in the time after the award.

 

[d4m10n]

...trying to give him way more benefit of the doubt on the specific example doesn't really address the body of work he has created in the time after the award.

If the rest of the "body of work" consists of provoking discussion on sensitive topics, I mean, what should anyone expect from one of the so-called Four Horsemen of New Atheism? The whole point of that subculture was to be frank and direct when asking whether religion is good for people, even when talking to those who find such questions blasphemous or otherwise unspeakable.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think Dawkins's tweet was pretty bad, and in fact his Twitter persona is pretty tone deaf and cringe-inducing.

I've always found Dawkins to be tone deaf and cringe-inducing. They made a career out of being antagonistic and baiting.

I'm a bit baffled as to why Dawkins has somehow *now* stepped over the line, when they previously hadn't by exhibiting the same behavior. I'm inclined to believe that the line itself has moved.

 

[angrysoba]

I phrased that poorly. I am not saying they didn't reach out because they reasoned it would create such a response; I am saying that the lack of such a response is evidence they did not reach out that way.

However, I don't think they are in any position to actually persuade Dawkins. That isn't to say they should give up on persuasion nor that they have. Again, this cited tweet isn't the only reason they withdrew the award. Did they address him any other time? Also, why should they make persuading him specifically a priority? Is it better to convince him, or to attempt to prevent people from falling for the 'appeal to false authority' and use of scientific sounding language to make dishonest arguments?

We are not entitled to have discourses built around addressing our arguments personally as individuals, even if we wrote some nice books. 'But I have a concern!' is not the be all end all, nor is 'I'm just asking questions'.

Sure, but Dawkins is not just an average Twitter user. He is specifically someone they promoted as "Humanist of the Year".

I think I could make a better argument than that. Dawkins likes to compare science to religion believing that scientists are the type of people who will change their mind given the evidence, and has cited examples where he and colleagues have steadfastly believed one thing only to be shown they were wrong (I think in regards to mollecular biology in his case, and he also uses other arguments such as how continental drift was replaced with plate tectonics). I think it would be extremely useful for the AHA to be able to persuade Dawkins of the truth of their position.

There are trade offs that the AHA know better than I do for them as an organization. I don't think the way they did it is a wrong way (there are many ways and only some I'd call 'wrong'). Pointing out a drawback of the way they did go about it does not mean I'm saying they were wrong to do it.

I think they took the People's Front of Judea approach to this issue. Looking at the list of Humanist of the Year who are still alive, I can see a fair number of those that would be more likely to view the AHA's response as the wrong way, without defending Dawkins's tweets themselves. For example, Steven Pinker, Rebecca Goldstein, Salman Rushdie, Jared Diamond, Daniel Dennett...

Again, this is their right as an organization, but I don't think it is strategically the best one.