Comments on: Dawkins and the D-Word http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606 "no matter how gifted, you alone cannot change the world" Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:09:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Lin Floyd http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37236 Lin Floyd Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:53:11 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37236 Words like Newtonian and Darwinian are useful in giving historical context. Physics and Evolutionary biology, respectively, bear only superficial resemblance to the theories of Isaac and Charles.

]]> By: Timeby http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37230 Timeby Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:55:08 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37230 Dougal, you dare to challenge the perfect cube that is the centre of the universe. Beware the Euclidean inquisitors!

]]> By: Dougal http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37225 Dougal Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:52:39 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37225 Ninya, don’t be so square…

]]> By: Ninya http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37224 Ninya Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:40:45 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37224 Geometric prejudice is some of the most ruthless discrimination out there…

]]> By: Dougal http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37222 Dougal Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:19:35 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37222 I have often wondered whether Cubism is some terrible geometric prejudice like racism or sexism.

]]> By: Timeby http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37221 Timeby Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:03:02 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37221 I suspect that the -ism suffix suffers from political association: communism, fascism, socialism…. etc.

]]> By: manigen http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37208 manigen Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:29:10 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37208 If only all suffixes could be so open minded.

]]> By: Blake Stacey http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37190 Blake Stacey Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:48:59 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37190 In physics, we’ve got the -ian suffix all over the place: Newtonian, Einsteinian, Maxwellian, Galilean, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, Laplacian, d’Alembertian. . . To my ear, at least, it seems to carry less weight than -ism. One can prove the equivalence of Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms, and one can begin an essay with Galilean relativity before moving on to Einstein; -ians don’t get jealous of one another like -isms do.

]]> By: ben http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37187 ben Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:17:29 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37187 We don’t say “Newtonism”, but we do say “Newtonian mechanics.” On the other hand, perhaps we only call it “Newtonian” because it’s been superceded by more sophisticated theories.

]]> By: manigen http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37182 manigen Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:25:40 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37182 It seems to be an old issue in America, but in the UK it’s never discussed. We don’t have the same problems with fundamentalists, you see.

Still, given Dawkin’s international-best-selling-globe-trotter-author-scientist status, I am suprised he hadn’t thought about it.

]]> By: Physicalist http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37162 Physicalist Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:15:34 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=606#comment-37162 I hadn’t realized the D-word was more common across the pond; good to know. I’d be quite surprised if Dawkins really hadn’t considered this before; isn’t it an old issue?

]]>