The Enemies of Reason

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

It could also have been reworded to:

It was a silly joke.

Sure - but that would have changed the whole sense of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

I have to say that most people in Ireland would end up being related to the interviewers for entry to medicine in the various Unis. Does anyone except me think that in a such a small country, interviewing for medicine or other courses is a bad idea.

I would support some kind of psychological test, but I'm sure the grinds schools would come up with great study aids for that too.

Also, from the evidence I've read the number of pupils in the class doesn't have much to do with how well kids do, and it's more the level of training the teacher has that is important to student outcomes. I guess a more interested teacher is going to do more courses to do her best for kids.

I agree though that a lot of people go to alternative practices because of the people contact thing. My friend who went to public school - and had grinds- was all empathetic when she started medicine, but has become a bitch doctor after a few years in practice. She thanks the lord everyday for the alternative practioners, she says that all the lonely old people go there now, and it is much cheaper for them to get reassurance at said practices. I find the change in her difficult to deal with, but she doesn't have an easy time, and is more interested in getting it right than in being nice to people.

Off topic completely, but I remember a study on sticking needles in people, one done correctly and one sticking them slightly off the proper points. Imaging of the brain showed different areas lighting up, I thought it did something, but we're not sure yet how it works. I saw the programme a few years ago on the BBC, so I don't know if there has been any other studies done since.

Scofflaw

karen3212 wrote:

I have to say that most people in Ireland would end up being related to the interviewers for entry to medicine in the various Unis. Does anyone except me think that in a such a small country, interviewing for medicine or other courses is a bad idea.

Easily solved - interview panels from the other Royal Colleges in the UK.

karen3212 wrote:

I agree though that a lot of people go to alternative practices because of the people contact thing. My friend who went to public school - and had grinds- was all empathetic when she started medicine, but has become a bitch doctor after a few years in practice. She thanks the lord everyday for the alternative practioners, she says that all the lonely old people go there now, and it is much cheaper for them to get reassurance at said practices. I find the change in her difficult to deal with, but she doesn't have an easy time, and is more interested in getting it right than in being nice to people.

One of my two oldest friends went into medicine, and it has had, to some degree, the same effect on him. I was sorry at the time that he chose it (22 years ago now!), because the effect was predictable - unfortunately, that he was very empathetic was part of the reason he initially chose it. He was certainly suited to it - St. Thomas' made him what I think is still one of the lowest offers they've ever made a student (CBB, whereas their normal lower cutoff is ABB).

I suspect, again without being able to offer anything other than anecdotal/personal evidence, that far from medicine taking the uncaring, it takes the caring, and turns them into the uncaring. Partly, that's the JHO level, which seems to be designed to "toughen up" the new girls and boys - but partly it's 'compassion fatigue' and the inevitable effects of taking too many life-and-death decisions, or just watching people die (hence the high rates of alcoholism). My friend came in from the hospital one time I was staying with him, saying "I hate it when they puke blood on your shoes, and then die on you". He also sent a very short email from Africa, which just read "the mad child who howled by the toilets has died - I don't know whether I'm glad or sorry". Those kind of experiences may not encourage doctors to hand-holding someone with an ingrown toenail.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Sure - but that would have changed the whole sense of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Exactly, I was expecting a S-coffl-aw man.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Easily solved - interview panels from the other Royal Colleges in the UK.



One of my two oldest friends went into medicine, and it has had, to some degree, the same effect on him. I was sorry at the time that he chose it (22 years ago now!), because the effect was predictable - unfortunately, that he was very empathetic was part of the reason he initially chose it. He was certainly suited to it - St. Thomas' made him what I think is still one of the lowest offers they've ever made a student (CBB, whereas their normal lower cutoff is ABB).

I suspect, again without being able to offer anything other than anecdotal/personal evidence, that far from medicine taking the uncaring, it takes the caring, and turns them into the uncaring. Partly, that's the JHO level, which seems to be designed to "toughen up" the new girls and boys - but partly it's 'compassion fatigue' and the inevitable effects of taking too many life-and-death decisions, or just watching people die (hence the high rates of alcoholism). My friend came in from the hospital one time I was staying with him, saying "I hate it when they puke blood on your shoes, and then die on you". He also sent a very short email from Africa, which just read "the mad child who howled by the toilets has died - I don't know whether I'm glad or sorry". Those kind of experiences may not encourage doctors to hand-holding someone with an ingrown toenail.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's amazing how we all love anecdotal evidence An ex-flat mate, was great craic and went off to be a med and became full of his intellectual grander thinking, thinking he knew everything. His x - girlfriend was the same as was anyone from her class I met. I remember buzzing off them giving riddles that had no answers and they were all freaked that their super intelligence couldn't figure them out but never pondered the question someone might be winding them up - high intellectualism - low social intelligence me thinks

Another neighbour on my road, the same happened to.
When I was long term sick, I saw about 40 Doctors, at least half of them were like that.
Basically there's a social prestige that some people buy into with medicine, it's not quite the same as the SUV culture, but to say it doesn't exist, is really naive.

On the school thing, I went to a public school, but there was plenty of money most people had to go off to the institute whcich of course, gave them a much better chance of getting very high grades and the largely did.

In a public school, half my class got A's in honours maths (this was the old course which was longer), not because it was great school but because a lot of them were off in the institute.

I like the way Christianity has elements of egaliteranism to it, and I think as we become a secular society we are forgetting some basic common humanity principles.

Ekancone

Tim Robbins wrote:

Naive, one eyed and cursory. I can't believe someone of your intelligence can have such a simple view. Some schools are far better than others and achieve better results, because they have better teachers.
Now if can't accept that, you have your head in the sand. For what is the point of private schools if all schools are equal.

On the other hand, if you accept that fact you must include it in your analysis. The results you receive in your leaving are not only going to be a function of how hard you work, they will will also be a result of how smart you are and how good the teachers in your school are.

However what should be the case for medicine is, you entry place should be a function of how hard you work, how smart you are and how good your empathy / social skills are.

In an ideal world, school, better teachers, richer family should not come into it. But right now, the end up having more influence than empathy and social skills.

If you think it is merely for good results then that it a naive view also.

Tim Robbins

daithifleming wrote:

If you think it is merely for good results then that it a naive view also.

It's primarily for good results, but good connections, good friends, good ethos, good sport facilities, good arts and music facilities, good science facilities also play a part.
But if you want to have a debate about, put a post in the humanities forum, it's going off topic in this forum.

Ekancone

Tim Robbins wrote:

It's primarily for good results, but good connections, good friends, good ethos, good sport facilities, good arts and music facilities, good science facilities also play a part.
But if you want to have a debate about, put a post in the humanities forum, it's going off topic in this forum.

Agreed, back to Dawkins then. (Though i was implying merely having the name of a top school on your cv is what people pay for) Was the 2nd episode on sunday past? I will have a scour for it if it was.

Tim Robbins

daithifleming wrote:

Agreed, back to Dawkins then. (Though i was implying merely having the name of a top school on your cv is what people pay for) Was the 2nd episode on sunday past? I will have a scour for it if it was.

No, Monday past. It wasn't great.

Ekancone

Tim Robbins wrote:

No, Monday past. It wasn't great.

I dont think Dawkins is well suited to TV imo.

Tim Robbins

daithifleming wrote:

I dont think Dawkins is well suited to TV imo.

His not that bad, he just comes across as arrogant.
A bit like Michael McDowell, an arrogant misunderstood genuis.
His books are way better.

MoominPapa

Check out the Enemies of Reason piss take in the current issue (1192) of Private Eye, its pretty funny

MoominPapa

MoominPapa wrote:

Check out the Enemies of Reason piss take in the current issue (1192) of Private Eye, its pretty funny

And someones been good enough to type it up:

ENEMIES OF REASON

(Silly music. Elderly donnish figure wearing casual clothes and expression of deep concern gazes earnestly into camera)

Professor Richard Dawkins (for it is he) : It is frightening to think that in the 21st century there are millions of people all over the world who believe that they can change the future by a simple act involving a birthday cake.

(Cut to shot of family group clustered around Marks & Spencer chocolate cake covered in lit candles. Woman blows out candles while the rest of her family shout 'Go on, Mum - make a wish!" Close-up of woman with eyes closed, accompanied by sinister music. Cut to Dawkins, looking shocked and incredulous.)

Dawkins (interviewing woman) : Mrs Simpkins, can I ask you what you think you were doing just now?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, I just made a wish while I was blowing out the candles, like I always do.

Dawkins: And you really thought that what you were wishing for would in some mysterious way come true?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, you never know, do you?

Dawkins: But how could blowing out candles on a cake have any influence over a future event? Isn't that just the most crude, primitive, infantile, unscientific superstition?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, if you're going to be like that, you're not going to have any of my cake.

Dawkins: As a control test, tell me what it is you wished for?

Family: Don't tell him, Mum, or it won't come true.

Dawkins (to camera) : So obviously the followers of this cult are under a vow of silence not to divulge the object of the "wish", to prevent any analysis of the outcome of their pathetic ritual, thus exposing it as an empty and futile act of self-deception for insecure neurotics.

(Cut to men in white coats looking through microscopes at pieces of birthday cake)

Dawkins: For the last five years, a team of researchers from the University of New Dworkins has been analysing over 2,000 case histories of the Birthday Wish cult. The leader of the team, Professor Hiram Moonbat, gave me his findings.

Bearded Scientist: In examining 2,522 samples, we could find little or no correlation between the expression of the "wish" by the anniversarial celebrant and any ultimate wished-for event.

Dawkins: Well, that proves it, doesn't it? The whole thing is rubbish, isn't it? And it is deeply alarming that, in the 21st century, the dark forces of unreason should still have so many millions of people in their grip, still indulging in...

Professor Moonbat (in background): ... however, our researchers were somewhat hampered by the fact that no one would tell us what they had wished for, which rather invalidated...

Dawkins (intervening): So there we have it, Everyone in the world is mad except me, and very, very dangerous.

(Cut to shot of birthday cake exploding, destroying family home. Caption reads "Reconstruction ")

NEXT WEEK: Professor Dawkins looks at the bizarre practice of shooting fish in a barrel, concluding that it is deeply unscientific and boring to watch.

stevejazzx

MoominPapa wrote:

And someones been good enough to type it up:

The skit misses the point, as Dawkins agenda as to why he is investigating/attacking 'new age spiritual mumbo jumbo' is that it's new found prominence at the the heart pseudo modern culture is harmful to other members of society. Essentially a lot of the 'practices' that Dawkins investigates are cheating people out of money and in some cases are even harmful to the well being of that person. The discreditation of these new age spiritualists is therefore, in my humble opinion, a noble pursuit. The skit that tries to parody Dawkins is quite unimaginative and doesn't really offer a valid crictique of Dawkins work, it is therefore to my mind quite worthless. The act of a making a wish at ones birthday is an utterly harmless tradition, it's well wishing, nothing more. Dawkins has addressed this issue before, the idea of santa, the tooth fairy etc, he doesn't have a probelm with it becasue they are harmless and add a bit of fantasy to the lives of childern. Now, I don't have a probelm with people criticising Dawkins, I just wish that were a little more intelligible.

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote:

The skit misses the point, as Dawkins agenda as to why he is investigating/attacking 'new age spiritual mumbo jumbo' is that it's new found prominence at the the heart pseudo modern culture is harmful to other members of society.

Agreed

The whole point of Dawkins' program was that this stuff isn't harmless Probably anticipating response like this he states that argument a number of times.

The skit then seems to attack Dawkins' for attacking things that essentially harmless, thus missing Dawkins' original point.

People can of course disagree with Dawkins and argue that this stuff is just harmless fun. But just like "The God Delusion" it is interesting how many people simply do not understand the points he is making. Perhaps Dawkins would see that as a symptom of the problem.

I don't know why but Meat Loafs "I Would do Anything for Love but I Won't do That" song popped into my head just now. When that song came out first there was a huge question of what is it that he won't do, as if this was left vague. He was constantly being asked in interviews what it was that he wouldn't do, as a serious question ("What is hidden message, what won't you do?")

In fact if anyone listens to the lyrics poor old Meat explains exactly what he won't do (its a few things actually) in each verse. It is therefore everyone to see, but people missed it. And by asking him this question in all seriousness they simply demonstrated there ignorance, demonstrated the fact that they didn't actually listen to the song.

I am reminded each time I see an attack on Dawkins newer work, a feeling that no one is actually listening to the song. "The God Delusion" was criticised for seeming to being written for atheists, despite the fact that Dawkins says in his introduction that this book is written for atheists. And now this program is criticised for attacking harmless superstitions when Dawkins states near the start of the first program that he is doing this specifically because he does not believe it is harmless.

MoominPapa

Whoever typed it up left a bit out which I think is actually quite important in making the intention of the piece, which is taking an obvious cheap shot, which is the regular style of PE, at someone who has in his time aimed at some pretty easy targets and is currently prominent in the media. See what you think:

ENEMIES OF REASON
Part 94

(Silly music. Elderly donnish figure wearing casual clothes and expression of deep concern gazes earnestly into camera)

Professor Richard Dawkins (for it is he) : It is frightening to think that in the 21st century there are millions of people all over the world who believe that they can change the future by a simple act involving a birthday cake.

(Cut to shot of family group clustered around Marks & Spencer chocolate cake covered in lit candles. Woman blows out candles while the rest of her family shout 'Go on, Mum - make a wish!" Close-up of woman with eyes closed, accompanied by sinister music. Cut to Dawkins, looking shocked and incredulous.)

Dawkins (interviewing woman) : Mrs Simpkins, can I ask you what you think you were doing just now?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, I just made a wish while I was blowing out the candles, like I always do.

Dawkins: And you really thought that what you were wishing for would in some mysterious way come true?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, you never know, do you?

Dawkins: But how could blowing out candles on a cake have any influence over a future event? Isn't that just the most crude, primitive, infantile, unscientific superstition?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, if you're going to be like that, you're not going to have any of my cake.

Dawkins: As a control test, tell me what it is you wished for?

Family: Don't tell him, Mum, or it won't come true.

Dawkins (to camera) : So obviously the followers of this cult are under a vow of silence not to divulge the object of the "wish", to prevent any analysis of the outcome of their pathetic ritual, thus exposing it as an empty and futile act of self-deception for insecure neurotics.

(Cut to men in white coats looking through microscopes at pieces of birthday cake)

Dawkins: For the last five years, a team of researchers from the University of New Dworkins has been analysing over 2,000 case histories of the Birthday Wish cult. The leader of the team, Professor Hiram Moonbat, gave me his findings.

Bearded Scientist: In examining 2,522 samples, we could find little or no correlation between the expression of the "wish" by the anniversarial celebrant and any ultimate wished-for event.

Dawkins: Well, that proves it, doesn't it? The whole thing is rubbish, isn't it? And it is deeply alarming that, in the 21st century, the dark forces of unreason should still have so many millions of people in their grip, still indulging in...

Professor Moonbat (in background): ... however, our researchers were somewhat hampered by the fact that no one would tell us what they had wished for, which rather invalidated...

Dawkins (intervening): So there we have it, Everyone in the world is mad except me, and very, very dangerous.

(Cut to shot of birthday cake exploding, destroying family home. Caption reads "Reconstruction ")

NEXT WEEK: Professor Dawkins looks at the bizarre practice of shooting fish in a barrel, concluding that it is deeply unscientific and boring to watch.

I don't think it is meant to be a coherent critique of the mans thinking or approach, its just filling up a few column inches with some funny stuff.
BTW I've always considered Meatloaf to be greatly misunderstood too

Ekancone

Are there any more episodes due? I have seen part 1 and 2 so far.

Scofflaw

And a slightly funnier cod-review of Dawkins.

cordially,
Scofflaw