From Conservapedia

Oxford Reply

Oxford University's reply to a recent inquiry about the status of Richard Dawkins:

“The statutory Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree. Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996.”



Discussion on this is below, under "Oxford Reply discussion".

Discussion

Andy, once again with feeling: the support for the claim that "according to OU, he's the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science" is contained in the exact same source that you use as evidence that he is not the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.. That quote again in full (mybolding):

“The statutory Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree. Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996.”

You keep repeating the first part of this sentence - which does indeed confirm that Dawkins' CV is incorrect and that he does not hold the statutory Charles Simonyi Professorship. However for some reason you are ignoring the second part which confirms that OU did confer a professorial title onto Dawkins in July 1996. This professorial title was granted by the Distinctions Committee of the University - see the gazette notice confirming the details of the title here. That notice clearly states that the full title of the professorship is "Professor of the Public Understanding of Science" and was awarded to Dawkins in the Biological Sciences Division. The current University Calendar confirms that he still holds the title, along with the position of Charles Simonyi Reader. If you accept that the first part of the FOI response is the official statement from OU on this matter then you must - by definition - accept the second part as official confirmation that OU granted Dawkins a professorial title in 1996. I am quite happy to admit that some of my earlier assertions in this talk page were wrong, and that the Simonyi endowment turns out to be a bit less cut and dried than I had supposed. I think this article should indeed reflect that Dawkins CV is incorrect in some particulars, and that he does not hold the statutory Simonyi chair. However all the evidence confirms that Dawkins does still hold a full and legitimate professorial position at the University of Oxford, and that his title is that of Charles Simonyi Reader, and Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. Just like Oxford say it is. Can the five distinct errors that I have listed earlier on this page please now be corrected? OurMike 14:19, 21 November 2007 (EST)

User:OurMike, in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I compliment you on your perseverance and attention to detail. We are making progress despite all the insults that have been spewed against me by atheists and liberals who seem to think that whatever Richard Dawkins says must be true. In fact, Richard Dawkins' resume is not true. It says that he holds a certain professorship, when in fact he does not.

Now that is settled, you want to address the statement by Oxford that Dawkins was granted a professorship in 1996 (not 1995), which was different from the Simonyi professorship. But that raises as many questions as it answers. By 1996, Dawkins already had the post (not a professorship) paid by the Charles Simonyi gift. Apparently this new professorship in 1996 was at no cost to the department that granted it, if in fact a bona fide department actually did confer it. I have not seen any posting of the official letter by Dawkins reflecting this new, apparently cost-less professorship. Was it a merely an honorary one? Was it truly the product of a customary peer review? I see evidence suggesting otherwise, and the fact that no one here can point to the appointment letter speaks volumes. Moreover, even if that 1996 professorship was legitimate, it is not the Simonyi professorship claimed on Dawkins' resume. I see no credible evidence suggesting that Dawkins still holds the alleged 1996 professorship now.--Aschlafly 19:39, 21 November 2007 (EST) Mr Aschfley. Just to clarity your position. Reading the above you now seem to be accepting that Professor Dawkins is a professor, but you are querying what type of professor he is and under what circumstance he became one. Is that the case? If so,we are, as you say, making progress.--British_cons (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly,

Yes that's right. Dawkins' CV is incorrect - the Simonyi Professorship is different from the title that Dawkins does actually hold (that of Charles Simonyi Reader (1995) and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science (1996)). I first pointed this out over a month and a half ago.

I have no idea how Dawkins' - or indeed any Oxford academic's - position is funded, though I'm not sure why you assume that it was without cost. I'm happy to debate University financing arcana, but it is not relevant to whether or not the title has been conferred.

The professorship was not "merely an honorary one". Oxford does not give honorary professorships, though it does give honorary degrees and honorary fellowships (Dawkins has one of those too, by the way - according to the Calendar he is an honorary fellow of Balliol).

The professorship was granted by the Distinctions Committee, which has a very specific and documented process of peer review[1]. There has been no evidence that Dawkins circumvented that process - do you have something that you have not yet shared with us?

The professorship is still extant, as the University Calendar confirms (incidentally, it also states that the professorship terminates in 2008, when Dawkins reaches retirement age, at which point he will become Professor Emeritus in accordance with Oxford regulations[2]).

I think we can shortcut this debate with a very simple question: do you accept that the FOI response, the Oxford University Gazette, and the Oxford University Calendar are credible, legitimate sources on Dawkins' status at the University? Just to remind you, the FOI response states that "Dawkins...had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996"; the Gazette is "the authorised journal of record for the University of Oxford. It provides information of...Appointments to University posts, such as professorships, etc"[3], and the Calendar is the official annual directory of the University's faculty, produced by the University's Public Affairs Directorate.

If you do accept these are legitimate sources then I'm happy to - once again - list in detail the evidence from them that confirms Dawkins appointment, his faculty membership, and his continuing employment, and I hope that the errors in the article will then be corrected. If you don't accept they're legitimate can you please explain why? OurMike 13:33, 22 November 2007 (EST)

User:OurMike, you claim that you pointed out the falsehood on Dawkins' own resume "over a month and a half ago," but I don't see evidence of that at your link. Instead, your link continued to insist wrongly that the entry here was in error, rather than the falsehood being on Dawkins' resume. Despite an abundance of evidence here that Dawkins' leading credential is falsely represented on his resume, you continued to fail to admit it. User:British_cons still won't admit it, nor will Dawkins' atheistic supporters. Obviously the grip of atheism prevents some people from accepting the truth.

The issue of what lesser honor was conferred on Dawkins in July 1996, after he received his current Simonyi post, is a curiosity. Whatever it was, it appears to me that (a) it was not a fully compensated professorship, (b) it was not a permanent faculty position in an academic department in which Dawkins now serves, (c) there was a general disclaimer raising doubts about which department approved the announced professorships, and thus (d) it did not satisfy the customary attributes of a professorship. Again, I invite Dawkins to post his letter of this appointment, if it was even an appointment. Note that his resume does not include any reference to this appointment or honor beginning in 1996, though his resume includes many lesser honors.--Aschlafly 15:03, 22 November 2007 (EST) Just so we get this clear, you now do accept that it was some form of professorship?--British_cons (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, Perhaps you did not scan down far enough. The section where I suggested that Dawkin's professorship was separate from the Simonyi endowment is dated 14:39, 11 October 2007. It says "Mea culpa ...I’m not now sure whether Dawkins did go through the election board stipulated in the act for the Simonyi endowment ... The Professorial title would seem to be entirely at Oxford University’s own instigation."

I have admitted, several times now, that I was wrong earlier in these talk pages, and that Dawkins does not hold the statutory Simonyi chair, and that instead he has the title of Simonyi Reader, and Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. If you recall, it was me that presented that evidence here, so I'm not sure why you say I fail to admit it.

Why do you assert that Dawkins professorship is not fully compensated, and what relevance does this have over whether the title was awarded by Oxford? In what way does the disclaimer on the Distinction Committee's page mean that it does not satisfy the customary attributes of a professorship (and does this mean that you believe none of the professors listed in that notice hold proper professorial positions at Oxford)? I have pointed to evidence from three impeccable sources from OU which confirm that Dawkins (a) holds the title, (b) is a member of both the Biological Sciences division and the Continuing Education Department, and (c) is still employed by the University. Can you please confirm whether you are willing to accept the FOI response, the Gazette, and the Calendar as legitimate sources, and if not why not? OurMike 16:27, 22 November 2007 (EST)

User:OurMike, you wrote, "Perhaps you did not scan down far enough. The section where I suggested that Dawkin's professorship was separate from the Simonyi endowment is dated 14:39, 11 October 2007. It says 'Mea culpa ...I’m not now sure whether Dawkins did go through the election board stipulated in the act for the Simonyi endowment ... The Professorial title would seem to be entirely at Oxford University’s own instigation.'"

But there's nothing to be "not sure about." The Oxford charter is crystal clear and it has been cited all along in the entry here, demonstrating that Dawkins received merely a "post" from the Simonyi grant, not a professorship. On the one hand you said "mea culpa," then a few words later you say that you're not sure, despite the entry being crystal clear. Then again and again and again you claimed the entry here is somehow false.[4]

I'm not trying to rub it in, but am trying to understand what it is about atheism that makes people thinks its OK for Dawkins' resume to contain this central falsehood about his credential. For example, why aren't you criticizing Dawkins for this???? Note how your ambivalence of this academic falsehood, which result in many employers firing someone in the U.S., enables other atheists to continue to pretend that Dawkins' resume is true, when it is not.

User:OurMike added, "If you recall, it was me that presented that evidence here, so I'm not sure why you say I fail to admit it."

The entry has contained the above link and direct evidence before you began claiming the entry was false, yet now you try to take credit for it!

UserMike added, "Why do you assert that Dawkins professorship is not fully compensated, and what relevance does this have over whether the title was awarded by Oxford? In what way does the disclaimer on the Distinction Committee's page mean that it does not satisfy the customary attributes of a professorship (and does this mean that you believe none of the professors listed in that notice hold proper professorial positions at Oxford)? I have pointed to evidence from three impeccable sources from OU which confirm that Dawkins (a) holds the title, (b) is a member of both the Biological Sciences division and the Continuing Education Department, and (c) is still employed by the University. Can you please confirm whether you are willing to accept the FOI response, the Gazette, and the Calendar as legitimate sources, and if not why not? OurMike 16:27, 22 November 2007 (EST)

"impeccable sources"??? Not at all. You provide no specific links for your three statements above, and they are not reflected as you state on Dawkins' own resume. The announcement by Oxford contained a prominent disclaimer suggesting that the department was not final, which raises doubt as to whether an academic department conducted customary peer review at all in this case.

We still don't have a copy of his appointment to any professorship, which presumably Dawkins could easily post if it exists. The claim of an appointment to a professorship (not the Simonyi professorship) is contrary to Dawkins' own resume (e.g., note the dates), adding further reason to be skeptical. But even those two issues were overcome, and they have not been, the appointment does not appear to me to be a customary professorship.--Aschlafly 18:56, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Here is the link to the Oxford University Gazette [5]. The citation from the FOI response and the Oxford University Calendar were posted here. I hope that helps. Feebasfactor 19:12, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, while you are of course free to doubt whether Dawkins holds a "customary" professorship, the simple, verifiable fact is that Oxford University consider that he does. Thanks Feebasfactor for pointing out - yet again - the references that confirm this. Unless you have evidence that the University has lied about Dawkins' appointment (in their FOI response, in their official journal of record, and in their staff directory) then this basic fact is incontrovertible. OurMike 09:20, 23 November 2007 (EST)

No, User:OurMike, the evidence is contrary to your claims, which you cling to most likely for ideological reasons. Nothing in Feebasfactor's links suggests that "Dawkins holds a 'customary' professorship." Dawkins' resume claims he received a professorship in 1995, while Feebasfactor's link refers to 1996 and even then with a important disclaimer. 1996 was after Dawkins had already accepted a different "post". Whatever Dawkins may have received in 1996, I have not seen any official recognition that he "holds" that position today as you claim. Nor have I seen Dawkins post any official letter conferring a professorship upon him, despite the challenge to his claimed credentials.--Aschlafly 12:52, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, the Gazette and the FOI response explicitly state that Dawkins was awarded a professorship, in 1996. It can’t be clearer. Oxford does not award professorial titles except via peer review or election to a statutory chair – so if he holds an Oxford professorship he is indeed a ‘customary’ professor. I agree that Dawkins’ CV is wrong, but you can’t on the one hand state that the CV is wrong (which it is) whilst simultaneously dismissing my evidence because it contradicts the CV! You still haven’t answered my question: do you agree that the Gazette, the Calendar, and the FOI response are legitimate sources of information on Dawkins’ status at Oxford? The Calendar isn’t published online, but I’m sure your local library can arrange to have a copy delivered if you want to see the pages yourself, confirming Dawkins still holds the title. Anyone with access to an interlibrary loans service can verify this very easily. Bibliographic details are here: http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199234141. Alternatively you could contact Oxford University directly – you can file a legally binding FOI request by email here: http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/foi/. It takes seconds. However if you don’t want to check the references yourself I can take a photo of the relevant pages from the Calendar when I’m in the office next week and post a link to them here. Would that satisfy? OurMike 09:35, 24 November 2007 (EST)

User:OurMike, I have complimented you on your diligence and perseverance, haven't I? But I just hope you're not clinging to atheism here. If so, you'd be doing yourself a big favor by recognizing the falsehoods inherent in atheism ... and the resume of its leader. Then you can move on the better for it.

Having acknowledged the falsehood on the Dawkins' resume about holding the Simonyi professorship, and about the false 1995 date for the other alleged professorship, you press further in reliance on Oxford catalogs that, in turn, likely rely on the announcement here: [6] . But what was that original announcement? It was this:

"The title of professor or reader has been conferred by the Distinctions Committee on the following. Please note that in a small number of cases the precise academic subject area in which the title is held is still under discussion. Any changes will be published separately when agreed. ...

Biological Sciences J.P. Armitage, MA, Fellow of St Hilda's: Professor of Biochemistry

D.A.P. Bundy, MA, Fellow of Linacre: Professor of Zoology

J. Burley, MA, Fellow of Green College: Professor of Forestry

I.W. Craig, MA, Fellow of St Catherine's: Professor of Genetics

C.R. Dawkins, MA, D.Phil., D.Sc., Fellow of New College: Professor of the Public Understanding of Science"

I'll concede that Dawkins was appointed as a "Fellow", but we've already agree that he was not appointed to the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. I infer that the title for Dawkins above was "still under discussion" that was to be clarified and "published separately when agreed." But we've found no subsequent publication, so we can infer that the hoped-for agreement for a professorship was never reached. Ergo, I conclude that Dawkins never received the professorship. Of course, if he did, then he can simply post the confirmatory letter. As far as I can tell he has not and cannot do so.--Aschlafly 14:21, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Hi Andy, some comments: (1) The disclaimer said that the "subject area" was under discussion not the professorship. You quoted it yourself Talk:Richard_Dawkins/Archive_4#Summary_of_Established_Evidence "Please note that in a small number of cases the precise academic subject area in which the title is held is still under discussion. Any changes will be published separately when agreed." It is talking about the subject area, and since you quoted it yourself, you know it. Give evidence that the disclaimer has any bearing on the validity of the title of professor? (2) The disclaimer was a general disclaimer, that could apply to any of the scientists mentioned in the announcement of the distinctions comittee. Give evidence that the disclaimer refers to Dawkins and not to say I.W. Craig, Professor of Genetics or J. Burley, Professor of Forestry? I took a break for a month or longer, and it seems like that your tactic is still to keep asking for more evidence, while it is him how has to provide evidence. After all, he is, or at least he was accusing Oxford University of fraud. You said a month ago: "I don't think the department referencing Dawkins in that link even had the authority to grant his professorship. So I'm confident that that is not worth the paper it was written on." Have you found any evidence for any of this in the meanwhile? Order 22:20, 24 November 2007 (EST)

User:Order, I just checked a subsequent year and the disclaimer cited is absent,[7] which is compelling evidence for me that the 1996 disclaimer applies to Dawkins. I've invited Dawkins here to provide his letter of appointment, and I hope he can, but I conclude that he cannot. So, in response to your question, I find it clear that the disclaimer (and lack of a subsequently published agreement) reveals that the named department did not grant a true and customary professorship.--Aschlafly 22:35, 24 November 2007 (EST)

So probably it was probably Dawkins' professorship for which "the precise academic subject area in which the title is held" was still under discussion? Considering the discrepencies we've seen so far and curious circumstances surrounding this professorship, that does seem likely. Feebasfactor 22:48, 24 November 2007 (EST)

(1) In what respect does the disclaimer have any bearing on a professorship being "customary"? Can you give evidence for your claim that an discussion on the subject area makes it impossible for professorship to be customary? (2) You have cited the announcement regarding Dawkins yourself, and your own quote contains several names. Do you have evidence that the disclaimer refers to Dawkins. Pointing to a document that doesn't contain either of the other, doesn't prove your point. Based on what evidence do you conclude that it the disclaimer referred to Dawkins, and not I.W. Craig. Both do not appear on the announcement one year later. What is your evidence? Order 22:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)

User:Order, Richard Dawkins has posted his resume and makes lots of money selling books based on his claimed credentials. We've already exposed one falsehood on his resume (the claim of a Simonyi professorship) and we have further exposed a conflict between the 1995 date for the other alleged professorship on his resume and the 1996 date provided by Oxford. Even Dawkins' defenders, such as User:OurMike, finaly admitted that the claim of a Simonyi professorship is false.

Now we're working on a possible third falsehood relating to the disclaimer connected to his alleged appointment and a lack of the promised published agreement about that. Dawkins, who is profiting from his claimed credentials, can surely post his letter of appointment if it exists. Assuming the disclaimer applies to him, and there is no reason to think it applies to anyone else, then the lack of the promised published agreement suggests there was no agreement awarding even this professorship. Seems to me it's long overdue for you to direct your questions at him.--Aschlafly 23:24, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Not so fast. I haven't seen any evidence that Dawkins is not the Simonyi professor of Public Understanding of Science. All that I have seen is evidence that he was appointed to become the Professor of Public Understanding of Science. Second, we have long ago established that this appointment happened in 1996, and it was in particular OurMike who found and explained this here, here and here. If anything you should complement him for his intellectual honesty, and not pretend you made this discovery yourself. Back to the evidence that you fail to deliver. An announcement by the distinctions committee in 1997, that doesn't mention Dawkins at all, is not evidence or proof for either of these claim: that the CV maliciously mentions the year 1995 as the start of the professorship rather than 1996.

mentions the year 1995 as the start of the professorship rather than 1996. that the disclaimer has any relevance for legal status of the professorship which was granted in 1996.

that the disclaimer refers to Dawkins appointment in 1996.

claim that the distinction committee exceeded it authority by publishing the 1996 announcement. The 1997 document that you linked doesn't give any evidence for any of these. And Freebasfactor, I might add, a discussion in 2007 on an American message board, is no evidence at all for the allegation that the 1996 appointment by the distinction committee of the University of Oxford was contended. Order 01:28, 25 November 2007 (EST)

I didn't mean to imply that our contending his professorship here somehow affected the appointment in 1996; I just meant that even today "the precise academic subject area in which the title is held" still seems hard to pin down. Could anyone even explain exactly what he is the professor of, and in which department? You can't just have the title "Professor" conferred and be a professor of nothing. Feebasfactor 11:26, 25 November 2007 (EST) The announcement by the distinctions comitttee is quite clear about it. Under the header Biological Sciences, it says C.R. Dawkins, MA, D.Phil., D.Sc., Fellow of New College: Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. Unless you find some evidence that this was overruled at a later stage, this is his title, subject area, and the department. But I can already tell you that a discussion on this site isn't evidence for decisions that may or may not have been made by Oxford in 1996. Order 22:05, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, I have to agree with Order. The prefatory note on the Gazette notice, on which you place so much weight, makes it very clear that “the title of professor or reader has been conferred.” Note the past tense in “has”, “been”, and “conferred.” Whilst it is certainly interesting to note that the “precise academic subject area” of some of the c.180 professors and readers on the list were still under discussion at the time the notice was printed, it cannot be inferred that the actual distinction of ‘professor’ or ‘reader’ was in the balance for any of the listed acedemics. I should also point out that your parsing of the second part of that prefatory note is wrong. The key phrase “Any changes will be published separately when agreed” means that you will only see another Gazette notice if there are any changes. As you have rightly pointed out, we have found no further notices regarding Dawkins on this matter, and therefore must assume there were no changes to the precise academic subject area of Richard Dawkins’ professorship. As I’ve already pointed out to you, the above was verified by Oxford University this month, when – in response to a legally binding Freedom of Information request – they stated that “Dawkins ... had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996”. Can we all now agree on this point? OurMike 10:00, 25 November 2007 (EST)

We have established that the falsity of Dawkins' resume with respect to the Simonyi professorship itself, and now are addressing a claim that he is some other type of professor.

Dawkins' own resume describes his position at New College as a "Professorial Fellow." While that may appear to be a full professorship, it is not. In the Commonwealth system, a "Professorial Fellow" is like an honorary professor, and is not an "established" position: [8]

"The objective of this regulation is to make provision for certain matters relating to the conferment of titles on persons who are associated with the University in a substantial way but who are not employed in or appointed to established or recurrent positions within the University.

Scope:

Titles which may be conferred:

1. Honorary Professor

2. Professor Emeritus

3. Visiting Professor

4. Adjunct Professor

5. Adjunct Associate Professor

6. Adjunct Teaching Fellow/Adjunct Research Fellow

7. Professorial Fellow

8. Clinical Associate

9. Visiting Fellow

Defenders of Dawkins here cite a statement by a clerk at Oxford that "Dr Dawkins ... was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996." Note carefully the distinction drawn by Oxford between being "appointed" and having something "conferred". That is the same distinction drawn above by the Commonwealth academic community between an honorary-type title and an established, peer-reviewed position. Oxford's statement just quoted confirms that Dawkins was not "appointed" to a peer-reviewed professorship. Rather, merely an honorary-type title of "professorial fellow" was "conferred" upon him. This helps explain why Dawkins has not posted any letter of appointment.

Users Order and OurMike, I hope you will view this information with an open mind and not continue to insist, for ideological reasons, that Dawkins was appointed to a peer-reviewed professorship.--Aschlafly 11:16, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly I’m glad we’ve now finally reached agreement that Dawkins was awarded the title of Professor from Oxford University. We are making progress.

OurMike, you lost credibility with that comment. I'm sure anything you wrote afterwards is worth reading. Sorry.--Aschlafly 14:24, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, then I retract that statement. I had assumed that you had agreed the title had been awarded, and that we were now discussing the exact nature of the 'professorship'. I'm basing this on your statement above "merely an honorary-type title of "professorial fellow" was "conferred" upon him." Apologies if I've misrepresented your position. OurMike 14:42, 25 November 2007 (EST)

The Oxford clerk said that it had "conferred" a title, which is a term of art meaning something very different from "appoint" or "award", as in "conferring an honorary degree." Also, as already discussed, Dawkins' title was subject to a disclaimer that was never removed.--Aschlafly 16:48, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, please see my response below regarding how Oxford University confers peer reviewed professorial titles. As discussed above, the prefaratory note makes it clear that a title has been conferred. OurMike 17:36, 25 November 2007 (EST)

To clarify about the disclaimer - the full disclaimer read: The title of professor or reader has been conferred by the Distinctions Committee on the following. Please note that in a small number of cases the precise academic subject area in which the title is held is still under discussion. Any changes will be published separately when agreed. Once again it is not made clear what exactly Dawkins is the professor of; however, this disclaimer only seems to contest the nature of Dawkins professorship, not the validity of the title. Additionally, it identifies the Distinctions Committee as the authority "conferring" the title of professor, so we might question whether they have the authority to do so. Feebasfactor 18:17, 25 November 2007 (EST) Feebasfactor, it is made perfectly clear what exactly Dawkins is the professor of: he is the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science' as it explicitly states in the Gazette notice. Whatever discussions may or may not have taken place subsequently regarding subject areas, there is no recorded change to this subject that anyone has been able to point to, and instead plenty of confirmatory evidence that Oxford continues to refer to Dawkins with this title - not least the University's own Calendar.OurMike 11:30, 27 November 2007 (EST) But what academic department is that, anyway? Or is Dawkins just a professor at The Museum of Natural History? I acknowledge that he has had the title of professor conferred, and that his position is recognized as valid by Oxford University. The disclaimer, as I explained, was not relevent to that particular point anyway. Perhaps, with all the apparent contradictions in information, I was at some points too readily critical of Dawkins. However, I'm still not impressed with his "bought" professorship, neither with the dubious mistakes on his Curriculum Vitae - and of course, the issue of his professorship being properly peer-reviwed has yet to be resolved. Feebasfactor 23:58, 27 November 2007 (EST) Woah, hang on. What "bought" professorship? Surely we've now established that Dawkins doesn't hold the endowed Simonyi professorship, but instead holds a professorship conferred by the Distinctions Committee - that's not a "bought" professorship. I'm also not sure why you say the peer-review issue has yet to be resolved, as there is a detailed explanation of the peer review process that the Distinctions Committee went through in the 1995 exercise before awarding the title - see here[9]. This is the same process that the majority of professors at Oxford will have gone through since Oxford switched to this distinctions system in 1995. As for academic department: the Gazette notes that at the time he was conferred his professorship he was in the Biological Sciences Division. That division has since been reorganised as Mathematics and Life Sciences, and the 2007/8 Calendar still lists him as a professor in that division (in the Zoology Department), as well as a professor in the Continuing Education department. OurMike 08:51, 28 November 2007 (EST) Do you have evidence that the disclaimer refers to Dawkins? Order 22:05, 25 November 2007 (EST) No, I suppose I don't. See my reply further up for why I think it likely does; however, I can't find evidence to definitively confirm (or deny) this. My explanation of the disclaimer stands, though. Feebasfactor 22:59, 25 November 2007 (EST) You are entitled to you explanation, even without evidence, but it is just one possible and unsupported explanation. To cover the alternative case, do you have any evidence showing that the disclaimer does not refer to any of the other nominations mentioned in the announcement of the distinction committee? Order 01:55, 26 November 2007 (EST) Your quotation above re. Professorial fellows is from the 1992 regulations of Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, not those of Oxford University. At Oxford, any holder of a readership, or anyone on grade RCIV or above is eligible to also hold the title of ‘Professorial Fellow’ at the college with which they are associated[10]. Note that this honorific is separate from the actual professorship, which is also why it is listed separately on Dawkins CV. More substantively you highlight the point that the title was “conferred” rather than “appointed”. This is absolutely correct, but it is not true to say that this means the title is ‘honorary’ or that it was not conferred after due peer review. In 1995 the University - with has a large number of very senior academics but proporionately very few professorial chairs - moved to a system of awarding ‘Titles of Distinction’ – these are professorial (or reader) titles, awarded by the University after peer review, but without an accompanying change in duties or pay. As the Vice Chancellor explained in his oration on the new process in October 1995: “The decision has been taken to change the University's system of titles of distinction and to enable all those who are deemed, by peer review, to merit the title of Professor or Reader to assume it.”[11] Professorial and Reader titles are awarded after a long and diligent process of peer review. The details of the 1995 process that Dawkins’ followed is available here [12], and includes review by Faculty Boards, submissions on quality of research, details of the extent and quality of contribution to teaching and administration, and a final review by the University’s Distinctions Board (composition of the 1995 Board that awarded Dawkins is here [13]). In the section on the award of professorial titles the University states: “(a) The primary criterion is that research must be of outstanding quality, have led to a significant international reputation, and be comparable in distinction with that expected of a professor in other major research universities.” As I understand it this system of awarding professorships is much closer to the American system, though I'm not an expert. Save for the handful of statutory professors, all academics with the title of Professor at Oxford would have received it as a Title of Distinction rather than as an endowed chair. OurMike 14:15, 25 November 2007 (EST) OurMike, thanks for your effort to find relevant documents - and they are relevant because they are from Oxford, from the 1995 and 1996, and refer to the appointment of professors in contrast to most of the evidence presented by others in this forum-, lets not forget that it is Andy who should find some evidence. Andy's condescending remarks on clerks of Oxford University are not evidence that the distinctions committee exceeded its authority. In a class conscious British context it could be interpreted as a display of snobbish attitude towards normal staff members, but lets face it, most of documents in organizations are written by staff, and then signed off by the authorized superior. It is good to see that also Andy made some effort to find supporting evidence, but unfortunately neither the fact that a clerk of Oxford University may have written the announcement, nor the statutes of an Australian university have any relevance. We are still looking for actual evidence for Andys allegation that the 1996 disclaimer has any relevance for Dawkins appointment, and that the distinction committee wasn't authorized. Do we have any evidence for this? Order 22:05, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Maybe there could be some information about Dawkins life

how he grew up, where he is from, how he came to be famous.

Dawkins first came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene Qwertguy 20:21, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Also I think a link to the debate between Mr Hitchens and Mr Mcgrath. If that is possible —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timoteo (talk)

Oxford Reply discussion

In the Commonwealth system, a "Professorial Fellow" is like an honorary professor, and is not an "established" position, and the "conferment of titles" is akin to an honorary title different from an "appointment": [14] --Aschlafly 14:13, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Would it be possible to find University Oxford, UK regulations for persons employed by the University of Oxford, rather than regulations by Swinburne University, Brisbane, Australia for persons who are associated but not employed by the University of Swinburne? Order 01:40, 26 November 2007 (EST) Brisbane? That's funny. When I went there I could have sworn it was in Melbourne! Philip J. Rayment 06:17, 26 November 2007 (EST) Melbourne, Brisbane, its both not Sydney :) Sure, it would have been Melbourne, thanks for pointing it out. Makes not much of a difference to the relevance of the documents, but it demonstrates that you (and I) should check your (my) sources. I just wanted to make sure that people pay attention ;) Order 08:54, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Has the discussion migrated up here? [NB: This was posted before this discussion was moved from the top of the page to the bottom—PJR] I'm not sure what the relevance of professorial fellowships is to the reply from Oxford, which clearly uses the term 'professor' and not 'professorial fellow'. As Aschlafly has rightly remarked "Oxford University chooses its official words carefully and means what it says". A professorial title is distinct from a professorial fellowship, as Oxford's statutes and regulations make very clear. This is why academics - Dawkins included - list their fellowships separately from their professorial titles. Regardless, if anyone really is interested the statutes from Oxford are available online. Dawkins would have been entitled to a professorial fellowship as soon as he became a Reader in 1995[15]. It should also be noted that at Oxford the "conferment of titles" is the standard method by which Oxford grants professorships. The titles are conferred after detailed process of peer review[16]. The majority of Oxford professors will hold a 'conferred' title - including, for example, Prof. Alister McGrath (featured prominently in the Dawkins article) who had his title conferred in 1999 [17]. OurMike 08:15, 26 November 2007 (EST)





Well done Mr Shafley

I really think that we should give Mr Schlafly credit where it is due. Conservative Christians are often stereotyped as being unable to change their opinions or accept new information even when it is obvious. Mr Schlafly, contrary to the opinions of his detractors, has not fallen into this trap. The objection that many people have to the article is the phrase: The title "professor" is misleading, if not fraudulent,. Mr Schafley, after reading only a couple of examples where Oxford specifically calls Professor Dawkins a "Professor" now says things like: The statement by Oxford that Dawkins was granted a professorship in 1996 (not 1995), which was different from the Simonyi professorship.” And “Apparently this new professorship in 1996 was at no cost to the department that granted it, if in fact a bona fide department actually did confer it.” And “Moreover, even if that 1996 professorship was legitimate, it is not the Simonyi professorship claimed on Dawkins' resume. “ Finally Mr Shafley manages to admit, “I'll concede that Dawkins was appointed as a "Fellow".

From this it is clear that Mr Schlafly now regards Professor Dawkins as not only some kind of Professor but is also one of its governors - although Mr Schfley still retains some doubts about the nature of the Professorship and the way it was awarded.

It’s clear that Mr Schafly is making fantastic – though admittedly rather slow – progress; and I really think that we should applaud his bravery and honesty in making these comments. It takes a real man to admit when he is wrong, and this correspondence shows that he IS man enough to change his opinions when presented with facts. He deserves the support and encouragement of all of us in his difficult journey. He is an example of how even the most convinced of people can be persuaded to change their opinions through the provision of clear evidence and sound reasoning. Well done Mr Schlafly! With time and a little bit more effort you may yet be able to agree with all the evidence posted. I sincerely hope you keep up the inspirational the personal development you have demonstrated so far - many people are rooting for you and think you will make it.--British_cons (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2007 (EST)

User:British_cons, your ideological rant above is clueless about the truth. Contribute to this encyclopedia or take your ideological rants elsewhere. Thank you. Do not insist on last wordism here.--Aschlafly 13:33, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Clarification

Aschlafly, can I please ask for some clarification of your position, as I am getting confused by two seemingly contradictory assertions you're making in this talk page. On the one hand you seem to be accepting that Oxford University did confer the title of Professor on Dawkins in July 1996 (I understand that you argue that a 'conferred' title is only honorary), yet on the other hand much of the page is a discussion over the prefatory note in the Gazette announcement of the title, implying that you still dispute that a title was conferred at all. These two points seem to me to be contradictory, but perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your position. Can I please ask you to clarify which of these two is your current position? OurMike 13:57, 26 November 2007 (EST)

My view is that Oxford "conferred" a "title" akin to an honorary degree and subject to the unusual disclaimer that deprives the title of meaning as a real "professor." The title was conferred in 1996 (not 1995), and I can find no specific confirmation of it on Dawkins's own resume. The clerk who responded to the inquiry with the quote blocked above appeared to be unaware of the unusual disclaimer, which was printed in a section above a list of names rather than identifying Dawkins specifically. The bigger question has been resolved: the Oxford blocked quote confirms that Dawkins is not the Simonyi Professor, as that position "has not as yet been filled."--Aschlafly 14:07, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Perhaps you'll get to my comments below in a moment, but I have a few questions about this view. There are over 100 professors and readers listed on that page. Could you clarify whether you think that all of their titles have been deprived of meaning? Why do you think it's "akin to an honorary degree" given the evidence to the contrary cited throughout this page? Doesn't the disclaimer say that if there were a change to the "precise academic subject area", it would be published? Reaganetics 14:44, 28 November 2007 (EST)

The disclaimer is unusual and has an obvious connection to Dawkins' situation, and the disclaimer does not appear in a similar, later announcement of distinctions. In fact, I think Dawkins has even claimed to change where he holds this title, just as the disclaimer warned. So it is reasonable to conclude that the disclaimer applies to Dawkins' degree, and it is also reasonable to expect an Oxford clerk not to notice it in responding to inquiries or publishing future notices.

As already pointed out ably by others here, saying that one has a professorship in a department to be determined later is as silly as calling oneself "president" of a country to be determined later. It means the term is not being used in its customary sense. And when that department or country is never later declared, then the title is particularly meaningless.--Aschlafly 15:34, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Except that the announcement didn't say that the department would be determined later. It named a department quite clearly. The disclaimer says that it might be changed, and that any changes would be announced. As I noted below, the logic is clear: Unless there is a subsequent announcement, then the department (not the degree) is as listed in the original announcement. If you have any evidence of a change, then please present it. In addition, the subsequent declaration by Oxford shows that the term is being used in its normal sense. Reaganetics 15:49, 28 November 2007 (EST) In addition, we are still waiting for evidence that the disclaimer referred to Dawkins, and not to Craig, or one of the many others on the list. And what is you evidence that the title was honorary? Order 18:43, 28 November 2007 (EST) And the announcement didn't even say "department". It said "precise academic subject area", which I take to mean the wording of the title (the "of" part of the title - "...of the Public Understanding of Science", "...of Development Economics", "...of Commonwealth Studies", etc), rather than what department or faculty the professor is working in. Regardless, the University *still* refers to Dawkins as the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science in its current Calendar (and still lists him as a professor in the Zoology faculty). Corrections to the Calendar are printed here. No mention of Dawkins yet. OurMike 11:40, 29 November 2007 (EST) Oh, and Reaganetics is correct. The wording - and Oxford is precise on its wording - is clear. Unless there is a subsequent announcement then the "precise academic subject area" is as listed in the original announcement. No evidence of a change has been presented. OurMike 11:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)

In your zeal to rehabilitate your favorite atheist, all three of you above misread the disclaimer on the title. Oxford's disclaimer stated: "The title of professor or reader has been conferred by the Distinctions Committee on the following. Please note that in a small number of cases the precise academic subject area in which the title is held is still under discussion. Any changes will be published separately when agreed. ..." That is clear that in certain cases -- most likely Dawkins' -- the subject area for the title "is still under discussion." That language indicates that there was no agreement, and still isn't. That's not a real professorship. One can't be a "Professor of fill-in-the-blank."--Aschlafly 19:14, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Could you give a source that confirms (1) that the disclaimer refers to Dawkin's, and (2) that the disclaimer has makes the professorship invalid. It is more than a week ago since this was asked for the first time, maybe you have been able to find evidence to support these claims. Order 19:48, 29 November 2007 (EST)

User:Order, it's basic logic. If I say that I'll give you $5 but this is subject to my agreeing to give you $5, and say no more, then I don't owe you $5. Oxford said it conferred a title subject to an agreement to confer the title in a meaningful way, and said no more. The title does not exist in a meaningful way.--Aschlafly 20:57, 29 November 2007 (EST) You analogy is flawed, and you know it. The analogy would be that I owe you $5, to be paid in cash, unless we agree on a payment by credit card. Anyway, this is sophistry, and regardless on how good your analogies will become, what you need is evidence that (1) and that the University considers disclaimer relevant, and (2) that the disclaimer refers to Dawkins. Order 21:37, 29 November 2007 (EST)

User:Order, ultimately atheism leads one to accept logical contradictions, as your analysis displays. At this point you're fighting with logic, not me. And to paraphrase the famous song, "I fought logic, and logic won!"

Please, please do yourself a favor and embrace logic rather than implicitly reject it. When you do, anxiety, depression, despondency, etc. often disappear. Do yourself a favor, if only for a few days. You can return to atheism afterwards if you like. But I bet you don't, if you truly open your mind for a few days. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:47, 29 November 2007 (EST) As someone who knows a thing or two about logic, semantics and syntax, I like to ask you what my logical error is? The syntax of my analogy was much closer to the disclaimer than the syntax of your analogy. I am more than willing to show you the corners of logic if you want. Even though it is a diversion. Your tactic is to steer away from your obligations to produce evidence. Making up an analogy that doesn't fit, and attempts to infuriate me with condescending remarks referring to depression, anxiety, despondency, etc are an obvious attempt to get out under your obligation to find evidence for your claims. Order 01:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

(liberal last wordism deleted here. Post earnestly here, or not at all.--Aschlafly 23:10, 29 November 2007 (EST))

There is nothing to support the contention that it is "most likely" Dawkins's area. We know that it occurred in this year and not in other years, but there are plenty of other professors to whom it could apply. Also, please indicate the part of the disclaimer that says that there "still isn't" agreement. Let me ask the question this way: Suppose that, at the time of the announcement, there was still discussion about whether a professor should be in Department A or Department B. The announcement is therefore made that a professor is appointed in Department A, subject to the disclaimer. Ultimately, the professor and Oxford agree that the appointment will be in Department A, just as it appeared in the announcement. Given the text of the disclaimer, specifically the claim that *changes* (not confirmations) will be published seperately, what would you expect to see from Oxford in this case? Reaganetics 14:30, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Andy, I don't really understand how the disclaimer invalidates the title either. Regardless of the precise subject area, the title of professor had already been conferred. Why can it not have been conferred, while possible changes to the subject area are still under discussion? This is what I don't understand.

I still don't think Dawkins' professorship is a customary professorship and probably less impressive than it is supposed to appear, but I don't think the disclaimer proves anything in these regards. Though I at first assumed it did, it might not even apply to Dawkins. Surely, if this one disclaimer bore such weight as to potentially validate or invalidate the entire title - well, why wouldn't OU specify who it applied to? Though Dawkins credentials are far from transparent (example - the contradictions on his CV), I think there are too many assumptions to be made in pursuit of this argument. Feebasfactor 23:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Feebasfactor, when an honor is subject to an agreement to be determined and announced, and the agreement is never determined and announced, then the honor is void. If you won't accept the logic of that, all I can do is recommend that you take logic more seriously than you are. I mean that earnestly. Logic will improve your life, not falsehoods.--Aschlafly 23:18, 29 November 2007 (EST) If you could provide evidence that the conferment was subject to the agreement on the subject you might have case, but the disclaimer doesn't include any provision of this kind. If you can find evidence that such a provision exists, give it. Furthermore, even if such a provision would exist, you would have to provide evidence that it did apply to Dawkins, and not Craig. If you have it give it. Order 01:25, 30 November 2007 (EST) As Order has noted, the disclaimer does not say what you claim it says. It does NOT say "This honor is subject to determination and announcement." It does NOT say "These people have the title of professor, and the area of specialization is subject to determination and announcement" It says "These people have received the title of professor. This is the area. If it changes, we will announce it."

The use of the word "If" is key. As I explained below, the logic is simple:

1. If the area changes, then it will be announced. (If A, then B.) 2. It was not announced. (Not B.) 3. Therefore, it is not true that the area changed. (Therefore, not A, by application of modus tollens to 1 and 2).

If you think I have made an error here, please say exactly what you think it is. Reaganetics 14:23, 30 November 2007 (EST)

The disclaimer, which applies to honors including Dawkins', says: "Please note that in a small number of cases the precise academic subject area in which the title is held is still under discussion. Any changes will be published separately when agreed. ..."

The "still under discussion" indicates that there was not yet a definitive agreement, nor was such agreement published since. Moreover, while I think Dawkins now claims he holds the title in part in the "Department of Continuing Education," I have not seen publication of such agreement. [18] Have you?--Aschlafly 18:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

I'm afraid that you didn't answer my request, so let me be more specific in case I was unclear. I laid out three statements above and analyzed them using utterly elementary logic. If you think any of those three statements is incorrect, please specify which one and provide (and justify, of course!) a correction.

I have a simple question--even simpler than the basic logical argument I presented above--and I am curious to see if you will answer. The disclaimer said that "any changes will be published." If there were no changes to a professor's precise academic subject area, what do you think Oxford would do?

Also, I would appreciate it if you would respond to the specific changes I suggested at the bottom of the article. Some of them do not concern this specific issue. Reaganetics 19:54, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Seconded

I would like to second the call for clarification; I'm broadly confused about the current position, and I don't think it matches well with what's on the main Dawkins page. Here is what I think I understand from the evidence above. I intend this as a tentative summary rather than a definitive statement of the truth, and I'm certainly willing to entertain corrections.

According to Oxford itself, Richard Dawkins received the title of professor from the Distinctions Committee in 1996 (as shown here: [19]. The specific title is "Professor of the Public Understanding of Science" under the heading "Biological Sciences." The announcement says that "in a small number of cases the precise academic subject area in which the title is held is still under discussion. Any changes will be published separately when agreed." There is no direct evidence that this disclaimer applies to Dawkins specifically, but even if it did, it would concern the "precise academic subject area," not the title itself. Moreover, nobody has posted any evidence of changes to Dawkins's "precise academic subject area." I reason as follows: If there is a change, then it will be published separately. It has not been published separately, and therefore, by modus tollens, there has been no change. Accordingly, Dawkins is a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.

Dawkins is not, however, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. According (again) to Oxford itself, nobody holds that position; the "statutory...Professorship...has not as yet been filled." If I understand Oxford's reply correctly, Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Reader and Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. (I am not certain, however, if one can be both a reader and a professor at the same time--I thought that professor was a higher title than reader and thus superseded it, but I don't have any evidence to support this at the moment. An alternative is that he holds the Charles Simonyi Chair as well as a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, but is not the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.) There is perhaps understandable confusion about this point: One of the Simonyi pages has as its title "The Current Simonyi Professor: Richard Dawkins." [20]. Obviously it's Oxford's determination that is binding, not Simonyi's (even though the Simonyi page is hosted at Oxford), but it's interesting nonetheless.

Again according to Oxford itself, Dawkins received the title of Professor of the Public Understanding of Science in 1996, not 1995. That raises the question of what he was in 1995. The Oxford statement clearly states that in 1995, he was the Charles Simonyi Reader. According to the regulations of Oxford, cited here [21]. a reader is qualified to hold the title of Professorial Fellow (but does not hold it automatically, if I understand correctly). If Dawkins went through this process, then in 1995 he would have been Professorial Fellow and Charles Simonyi Reader.

There is some debate about the honorary nature of Dawkins's professorial fellowship. The claim is that a "Professorial Fellow is like an honorary professor," and the evidence cited is from Swinburne University in Australia. I have seen no specific evidence to show that Oxford follows Swinburne's policies, or that Swinburne follows Oxford's. In any event, the titles listed from Swinburne are not all honorary (adjunct and visiting professors are not honorary, for example). So even if Swinburne's policies are relevant, it's not clear that they treat a "professorial fellowship" as "honorary-type." Nor is it clear that the titles are temporary ("professor emeritus" is not temporary, for instance). In any event, both the titles of "Reader" and "Professor" are clearly based on merit and peer review at Oxford (see here: [22]). Nobody disputes that Dawkins has held the title of "Reader," and therefore it is clear that he has held a peer-reviewed academic position. If he does hold the title of "Professor," and I think it's clear from Oxford's statement that he does, then that is a peer-reviewed title as well.

There is also some debate about his position at the Museum of Natural History. From the above evidence, it seems clear that Oxford did grant Dawkins the title of professor. Dawkins has written the following: "I made a special request that, like several other tenured faculty members of the Department of Zoology, my professorship should be administered through the Museum of Natural History...all of whose senior Curators are tenured members of the faculty of Oxford University, holding joint appointments with Departments such as Zoology and Geology."[23] If this is true, and it would be nice to have independent confirmation of it, then it seems clear that his position at the Museum does not preclude his holding a professorship at Oxford.

If this summary is correct, then the following changes should (I think) be made. Given the dispute over these issues, I have not made them and am instead waiting for discussion.

The special terms of this gift allowed Richard Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor". This sentence should be stricken as incorrect.

In other words, the gift establishes an endowment for future professors, but is held initially as a "post" by Dawkins who was apparently never subjected to the full peer review election process specified in the endowment. Strike everything after "Dawkins" as incorrect.

when in fact Dawkins' position is at the Museum of Natural History, an institution merely owned by the University of Oxford. Strike as incorrect, or else note that confirmation is required.

The title "professor" is misleading, if not fraudulent, as the position donated for his benefit does not satisfy the Merriam-Webster definition of "professor": "a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education." Strike as incorrect and possibly libellous.

Richard Dawkins admitted to several key facts above, Specify which. If we are accusing a man of error or dishonesty, we must be precise in our accusations.

However, Dawkins was silent on the central characterization above that his online resume is misleading in stating that he is a professor of Oxford University rather than holding a position donated for his benefit which is called a professorship at a museum. Strike as incorrect. He was not silent on the issue and he is a professor at Oxford.

As noted above, I am happy to entertain debate on these issues. Reaganetics 13:49, 28 November 2007 (EST)

I have a few other questions to add to the above.

The article seems to draw a distinction between a "post" and a "professorship." Given that a professorship is a kind of post, what is the relevance of this distinction, especially given the evidence that Dawkins does hold a professorship?

Michael W. DeLashmutt of the University of Glasgow described the "post" as being a "Chair", not a professorship... Same as previous. In addition, a chair may be a kind of professorship, so this utility of this distinction is not obvious.

Leading universities do not permit the "buying" of a professorship for someone. No references are provided, and this seems untrue or irrelevant given the above evidence.

As of October 5, 2007, the Oxford University's Zoology Department lists the status of Richard Dawkins status as "other" rather than as "academic".[11] The link no longer works and its relevance is unclear anyway. I suggest removing it.

Reaganetics 13:57, 28 November 2007 (EST)

With respect to the Swinburne regulations, I'd like to add, that the quoted section refers to persons not employed by Swinburne. At Swinburne academic promotions for persons employed by the University are covered by the HR regulations [24]. A level E position at Australian University is equivalent to a full professor. Of course any of the Swinburne regulations are irrelevant, since it is not Oxford. Order 18:51, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Errors in the article

“in fact Dawkins' position is at the Museum of Natural History, an institution merely owned by the University of Oxford.” Incorrect. Dawkins is based in both the Zoology Department and the Continuing Education Departments at Oxford.

Dawkins' "position" is the source of his paycheck, and the statement is correct as to his "position". Whatever honorary, unusual, disclaimed or non-salaried titles Dawkins' may also hold is a different (and uninteresting) matter.--Aschlafly 11:18, 1 January 2008 (EST) Aschlafly, Dawkins 'position' is in the Zoology and Continuing Education Departments, as has been pointed out repeatedly, and confirmed by Oxford University in both their Calendar and their FOI response. OurMike 11:33, 1 January 2008 (EST)

As I explained, the "position" obviously refers to the source of his paycheck, and that is the Simonyi gift.--Aschlafly 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Indeed. And as I explained, that “position” is based in the Zoology and Continuing Education Departments. See [25] where the General Board of the Faculties confirms this appointment from 1995 until the retiring age, and its location in the Biology and the Continuing Education faculties.OurMike 13:42, 2 January 2008 (EST)

“The title "professor" is misleading, if not fraudulent, as the position donated for his benefit does not satisfy the Merriam-Webster definition of "professor": "a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education." Incorrect. The Charles Simonyi Readership may not qualify as a professorship (though it is of roughly equal rank to an Associate or Full professor in the US), however Oxford have confirmed that Dawkins subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in 1996. They also confirmed he is a member of both the Zoology and the Continuing Education Departments. He is therefore a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education, and meets both the Merriam-Webster and the Oxford University definition of “professor”.

Dawkins calls himself the "Charles Simonyi Professor,"[26] and it has already been amply demonstrated here (and even admitted by yourself below) that such title is false and thereby misleading.--Aschlafly 11:18, 1 January 2008 (EST) Then it needs to be clarified in the article that it is the Charles Simonyi Professorship title that is misleading. As it stands the article implies - wrongly - that Dawkins does not hold the title of Professor. It has already been amply demonstrated here that he does. OurMike 11:33, 1 January 2008 (EST)

No, Dawkins' resume claims he became "professor" in 1995, and so Dawkins himself may not be referring to unusual and perhaps honorary titles given to him 1996.--Aschlafly 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Dawkins resume does, and it’s wrong. My point is that Oxford University refers to him as a professor from 1996, so he does indeed hold the title. The article should clarify that Dawkins statement is wrong, but that he does still hold a professorial title from Oxford. OurMike 13:42, 2 January 2008 (EST)

“his online resume is misleading in stating that he is a professor of Oxford University rather than holding a position donated for his benefit which is called a professorship at a museum.” Incorrect. While Dawkins’ resume is misleading in stating that he is the Charles Simonyi Professor, Dawkins does legitimately hold the title of Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, which was properly conferred by the University in 1996 after peer review.

No, we've discussed this at length and the 1996 title was limited by an extraordinary disclaimer suggesting to me a lack of customary peer review. Moreover, the 1996 title appears to me to have been merely a non-paying, or quasi-honorary, professorship.--Aschlafly 11:18, 1 January 2008 (EST) Aschlafly, yet you provide not one iota of evidence for this assertion, and not one iota of evidence that counters the very explicit and unambiguous assertion from Oxford University that the 1996 title was NOT limited by the prefaratory note, did NOT undergo any changes, and was awarded PROPERLY (e.g. via peer review). There really is absolutely no basis for your repeated assertions that the 1996 title is in some way questionable. OurMike 11:33, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I am not aware of Oxford explaining its disclaimer or stating that the title was the basis of full peer review. All the evidence that I see is to the contrary.--Aschlafly 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly, we have discussed at some length already the FOI response from Oxford in which they stated “the title of Professor was properly conferred on Dr Dawkins in the first recognition of distinction exercise in 1996... No changes were made to the academic subject area of this title. Had any changes been made (which they were not) they would not have invalidated the holding of the title of Professor... Professor Dawkins still legitimately holds the title of Professor.” In addition I’ve pointed you to the detailed peer review process used in the recognition of distinction exercises, so I don’t know why you are now claiming you have seen no evidence. Can you please provide your evidence that Oxford are wrong in their response to the FOI request? OurMike 13:42, 2 January 2008 (EST)

The bottom line is that I see no basis for changing this entry. If, however, you wish to suggest an unbiased change that fully admits the falsehoods in the professorship claim as well as the unusual and questionable nature of the 1996 title, then we'd certainly consider it. However, I strongly suggest compliance with our rules here before posting further.--Aschlafly 11:18, 1 January 2008 (EST) My suggestion would be to simply replace the entire first section with the following: "Richard Dawkins is currently the Charles Simonyi Reader and Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Dawkins claims on his CV that he is the Charles Simonyi Professor - a statutory professorial position at Oxford. In fact he does not hold the statutory professorship, rather he holds a standard 'Title of Distinction', which is the more common method by which Oxford confers professorial status onto its academics." OurMike 11:33, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Your replacement is completely unacceptable because it downplays the nature of the position and the misleading claim on Dawkins' resume.

For 25 years Dawkins taught at Oxford without being promoted to a professorship and then a "post" was purchased for him by a wealthy supporter. That's not a real professorship in any real sense of the word. I'm moving on to other issues and suggest you do some helpful edits to other entries here before wasting more time on this.--Aschlafly 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I’m not sure what the relevance of the 25 years is to the genuineness of his professorial title - according to Conservapedia C.S. Lewis was at Oxford for 29 years before becoming a professor. Does this disqualify Lewis? In any case Dawkins’ readership ‘post’ is NOT the professorship. I thought that point had already been cleared up many weeks ago. The professorship was separate. It was not “bought” by a wealthy donor, it was awarded by the University, in a Recognition of Distinction exercise, carried out in 1996. The vast majority of professorships conferred by Oxford since 1996 have been through identical annual, peer-reviewed exercises. If you do not agree that such titles are “real” professorships then you are saying that the vast majority of ‘professors’ listed in Oxford University’s calendar (including, for example, Alister McGrath, quoted approvingly in the article) are not in fact real professors. Would you like me to start making helpful edits on the McGrath page, pointing out his misleading and potentially fraudulent title? OurMike 13:42, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Further Freedom of Information response from Oxford University

Aschlafly,

I see that the article has not been updated, and that there have been no further discussions on this page for some time. I’m assuming then, that you still stick by your assertions on this and previous talk pages that the title of Professor was not properly conferred on Dawkins in 1996. As I understand it, your argument is that the prefaratory note on the Gazette notice (“in a small number of cases the precise academic subject area in which the title is held is still under discussion. Any changes will be published separately when agreed”[27]) likely refers to Dawkins, and that because no further notices were published the title was not conferred. You stated earlier: “all three of you above misread the disclaimer on the title...[it] is clear that in certain cases -- most likely Dawkins' -- the subject area for the title "is still under discussion." That language indicates that there was no agreement, and still isn't. That's not a real professorship. One can't be a "Professor of fill-in-the-blank."” and later “Oxford said it conferred a title subject to an agreement to confer the title in a meaningful way, and said no more. The title does not exist in a meaningful way.”

In order to resolve this point I have filed a second Freedom of Information request with Oxford University, directing them specifically to the Gazette notice and its prefaratory note, and asking them whether this means the title was not properly conferred on Dawkins; whether there were any changes to his academic subject area; whether Dawkins currently holds the title; and if he does, which academic departments he is currently associated with. A Freedom of Information request – as I’ve noted before – is binding on institutes of higher education in the UK as a result of the Freedom of Information Act 2000[28], and the University is legally obliged to provide accurate and truthful information[29].

Oxford’s official response on 11th December was as follows:

Thank you for your request for the above information. a. I confirm that the title of Professor was properly conferred on Dr Dawkins in the first recognition of distinction exercise in 1996. b. No changes were made to the academic subject area of this title. Had any changes been made (which they were not) they would not have invalidated the holding of the title of Professor. c. Professor Dawkins still legitimately holds the title of Professor. He is associated with the Departments of Zoology and Continuing Education.

Happy to provide a copy of the email if you wish. Given the above there can now be no doubt that Dawkins does legitimately hold, from Oxford University, the peer reviewed[30] title of Professor of the Public Understanding of Science[31], and that this was conferred in 1996. I think therefore that Reagentics suggestions for changes to the article should be carried out. OurMike 13:20, 12 December 2007 (EST)

(removed silly rant[32])





OurMike, I appreciate your diligence on this, and I do not have any ax to grind here. But I also do not see any errors in the entry, and the responses to your FOIA request are simply too general to be helpful. Did the unusual disclaimer on the announcement apply to Dawkins' position? I'm confident it did. Given that the Simonyi award came first, was Dawkins subjected to real peer review? I doubt it. But if yes, what was that peer review process? Rather than providing substantive answers, the clerk at Oxford is simply repeating what is in its literature, and we've already identified issues with that.--Aschlafly 13:41, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, let me address your points in turn: 1. The errors in the article (and suggestions for changes) have been pointed out in considerable detail by Reaganetics in this section of the talk page. 2. Oxford’s formal response was extremely precise. It unambiguously confirms that Dawkins had the title of Professor conferred in 1996, that the title was conferred properly, and that he still holds that title. 3. Oxford's reply confirms that the prefaratory note - whoever it may refer to - is not relevant to whether the title was properly conferred - "Had any changes been made (which they were not) they would not have invalidated the holding of the title of Professor." 4. The Simonyi award gave Dawkins the position of Reader in 1995, as we have already established. The title of Professor of the Public Understanding of Science is separate and distinct. Oxford University’s Calendar makes it clear that he holds both titles, referring to him as the ‘Charles Simonyi Reader and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science’. 5. Why do you doubt that Dawkins was subjected to real peer review? Oxford confirmed that the title was conferred “properly”, and Oxford’s regulations are clear on what process must be followed for the proper conferment of a title. This includes peer review – you can see the details in the link I provided above, but here it is again:[33]. 6. What “issues” have we identified with Oxford University’s literature? Are you now asserting that the University does not itself know if it has awarded a title to its own members of staff? If Oxford University is itself not qualified to respond to the question of who holds the title of Professor at Oxford University, then who is? OurMike 14:25, 12 December 2007 (EST)

OurMike, I don't want to this run in circles again and consume your time and mine. I'll be succinct in responding:

1. I glanced at his alleged "errors" and found little more claims that a statement was not relevant. That's for readers to decide. I see no "errors". Quote something specific for me if you can.

2. The clerk did not address the disclaimer, and whether real peer review occurred.

3. The generic, boilerplate response is not helpful.

4. The Simonyi position is a "post", not a professorship as has been stated on Dawkins' resume.

5. Dawkins received the post first and the professorship, if given at all, appears to me to have been honorary rather than the result of a bona fide peer review.

6. The clerk appears merely to be repeating the incomplete information that Oxford has already provided, without explaining the disclaimer and the other aspects of this issue.

7. How about this: quote Dawkins' resume very specifically in your question to Oxford, and ask them to explain it in a satisfactory manner.--Aschlafly 18:25, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, Very well. Specific errors listed above. Oxford University’s Information Officer (responsible for coordinating all FOI responses) did address the prefaratory note, when they stated categorically that “no changes were made to the academic subject area of this title. Had any changes been made (which they were not) they would not have invalidated the holding of the title of Professor.” I specifically pointed them to the prefaratory note, and they were legally obliged to provide full disclosure in their response. Their answer cannot be clearer. Oxford also addressed whether real peer review had occurred when they stated that the professorship had been awarded “properly”. However it may appear to you, Oxford’s regulations are absolutely clear that such titles are only awarded after a process of peer review both by faculty or inter-faculty boards and by the senior Distinctions Committee itself (headed by the University’s Vice Chancellor). You have provided no evidence that Dawkins somehow sidestepped the peer review process for this title. You argue that Oxford are “merely...repeating the incomplete information that Oxford has already provided” yet that information has been complete and consistent from the start. The Calendar, the Gazette, and their FOI responses all agree that Dawkins was awarded a Readership from the Simonyi endowment[34], and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in 1996[35]. He now holds the title of Charles Simonyi Reader, and Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, and is a member of both the Zoology and Continuing Education Departments. Dawkins’ resume is wrong, and Oxford have already made that clear – he does not hold the statutory Simonyi professorship, and he became a professor in 1996 not 1995. Dawkins’ CV is not in any case their responsibility. However Oxford are, by definition, the ultimate authority on whether or not the title of Professor of the Public Understanding of Science was properly conferred by them in 1996, and they have repeatedly confirmed that it was. OurMike 11:05, 13 December 2007 (EST)

The God Delusion

Has anyone here actually read this book from cover to cover? Ajkgordon 16:46, 16 December 2007 (EST)

How many atheists do you think have read most of the Bible?--Aschlafly 17:01, 16 December 2007 (EST) Almost all the atheists I know have read most if not all the Bible. But I'm not sure what that has to do with my question above. Ajkgordon 17:11, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Really??? That would surprise me. I don't think that is true about the teenage and college-student atheists.--Aschlafly 18:24, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Actually I should qualify that. Almost all the people I know to be atheists have read most if not all the Bible. I know lots of people many of whose religious beliefs or lack of I have not the faintest clue. So I may know lots of atheists who have not read the Bible. I certainly know lots of Muslims, Jews and Buddists who probably haven't read the Bible. But I still know a lot of people who I know to be atheists and who have definitely read it. And certainly almost all teenagers and college students I know have read it too - that's what you get when you send your children to Catholic school :) But that still doesn't answer my original question. Anyone? Ajkgordon 07:46, 17 December 2007 (EST) I can't answer the question because I don't know if anyone here has read it! I haven't, although I'd like to if I had time, but I have quite a few things more important than that to spend my time on. I do know someone who's read it, a young Christian trainee palaeontologist, who says that it strengthened his faith—seeing how weak the arguments against Christianity are! It wouldn't surprise me at all that a lot of atheists have read the Bible. But I wouldn't be asking that question. The God Delusion purports to be an argument against God. The Bible is not an argument for God; it presumes that God exists. A better question is how many atheists have read a good apologetic for the Bible (or for creationism). As a creationist living in a largely-secular society, I read and hear lots of pro-evolutionary comment and argument, whether that be on nature documentaries, other TV shows, radio (including the ABC's Science Show), newspapers, science magazines, etc. Of course I also read plenty of creationist material. But how many anti-creationists or atheists have read more than an absolute minimum of creationist material? Very few, in my experience, and I've asked quite a few. They generally avoid answering. Philip J. Rayment 08:09, 17 December 2007 (EST) But how do you know the arguments are weak if you haven't read it? Or is that a comment from your palaeontologist friend? I haven't read it either (yet) but I'm interested in people's views if they have read it especially if they criticise it. I'm also interested in similar books but from the other side, i.e. robust argument for a diety (not McGrath). Yes, I'm not sure what the Bible has to do with anything! Ajkgordon 08:15, 17 December 2007 (EST) That was a comment from my friend. Somebody who is going to argue against the Bible should have read it, but my point is that they should also have read defences of it. Are you interested in published critiques of it? Here's one. Philip J. Rayment 08:31, 17 December 2007 (EST) I presume you don't subscribe to the Muslim faith. Should you have read the Koran? ;) Thanks but I'm not looking for a critique - they're ten a penny. I'm looking for a book or books that logically demonstrate why a God must exist - in isolation from Dawkin's The God Delusion or similar books from Harris or Hitchens. Ajkgordon 08:46, 17 December 2007 (EST) I haven't read the Koran, but I would if I was going to do much arguing against it. Because I haven't, I don't. Arguments for God? There's a brief argument (part of one chapter) here. Philip J. Rayment 08:56, 17 December 2007 (EST) Hmmmm... a little weak, Philip. There are plenty of atheists who don't argue against the Bible - they just don't believe in God. But you would still argue that they should read the Bible because in effect they are arguing against it. The same could be said for your disbelief in Islam or Buddism or Hinduism. (I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, btw :) Thanks for the link. TBH, with all the quoting from the Bible it doesn't look quite what I'm after. Saying that the Bible says that God exists is a bit too circular for my purposes, i.e. to find a standalone counterpoint to The God Delusion before reading it. Ajkgordon 09:09, 17 December 2007 (EST) No, I would not argue that they should read the Bible "because in effect they are arguing against it". I think they should read it because it's true and that they should become Christians, but that's an entirely different argument. You are putting words in my mouth then criticising me for being inconsistent based on those fictional words. You clearly didn't look at the link I gave you very well, because (a) it doesn't have circular arguments (you've jumped to conclusions there; you might as well say that someone shouldn't read the Origin of Species to find out the reasons for evolution because it says that evolution exists!) and (b) you clearly didn't see the appendix to that chapter, "Non-Biblical evidence for the Creator God of the Bible". Philip J. Rayment 09:16, 17 December 2007 (EST) Alright, calm down, mate. I should have phrased it better perhaps by saying "wouldn't you?" at the end. But the point is you still believe that atheists are wrong partly because they haven't read the Bible. No matter. Yes, I didn't read your link fully (I'm at work and don't have time) - I only skimmed it. But it does have five Biblical references is the first three short paragraphs. Yes, I saw there is a section on non-Biblical evidence. But I notice that it seems to be refuting an old universe, evolution, etc. rather than simply arguing the case for God. That's perilously close to God-Of-The-Gaps. But thanks, I will read it properly. Ajkgordon 09:29, 17 December 2007 (EST) I believe atheists are wrong because they believe that no god exists, when He actually does exist. So what that it has biblical references? If you are going to find out about God, surely the Bible is one of the primary sources? The arguments are not god-of-the-gaps arguments, but positive arguments from what is known. Philip J. Rayment 18:03, 17 December 2007 (EST)

<---- I don't particularly want to find out about God, (at least not for the purposes of this exercise). I want to find out about the arguments for the existence of God in contrast to Dawkins' book which presents the arguments for the non-existence of God. The excerpt you pointed me to doesn't do it, I'm afraid. While it was very kind of you to present me with the material, I find an argument for the existence of God relying primarily on what are essentially "Look, it says so in the Bible" statements not especially convincing. I'm also aware of the traditional arguments such as the ontological, moral, cosmological, and anthropic ones - arguments that stand or fall by themselves without recourse to the Bible. What I'm after, I suppose, is a foil to Dawkins' book that could offer a decent logical counterpoint to someone who's never contemplated matters of religion or God. Someone suffering deep amnesia or one of those lost children growing up in the jungle by himself. In that case, references to the Bible would be meaningless. And McGrath's work is simply a rebuttal of Dawkins, so again, not what I'm looking for. Do you see what I mean? Ajkgordon 09:48, 18 December 2007 (EST) I see what you mean up to a point, but... I understand the distinction between finding out about God and finding arguments for His existence. My point was that a book that tells you about God is highly likely to provide evidence for his existence. I still maintain, however, that calling them '"Look, it says so in the Bible" statements' is a mischaracterisation. What you are essentially doing is asking for arguments for God's existence yet arbitrarily excluding some of those arguments because they refer to the Bible. You are excluding arguments that refer to the Bible. You are apparently excluding some arguments that do not refer to the Bible. That doesn't really leave much room for anything else, unless perhaps you are looking for specific answers to Dawkins' specific arguments, but if that's what you wanted I figure you would have clearly said so. Why would the Bible be meaningless to someone suffering amnesia, etc.? Taking that line of thinking to it's logical conclusion could exclude any encyclopedia, any ancient document, any newspaper, book, or magazine, etc. If the person is that ignorant, you simply have to explain some of these things. So why not explain what the Bible is also? Philip J. Rayment 02:32, 19 December 2007 (EST) <---- But anyway, this gets us even further from my original question. Has anyone here read Dawkins' book in its entirety? Ajkgordon 09:48, 18 December 2007 (EST) I've read it, but I somehow doubt your question was guided at me.--British_cons (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2007 (EST) You'll do :) What did you think? Was it hysterical as has been suggested? Was it sarcastic (I can guess that it was)? Does it produce good arguments for the non-existence of God or is it simply a sneery put-down to the rise of fundamentalism? Was it simply preaching to the converted or could it "raise consciousness" among believers? Can you recommend an opposing book that argues for the existence of God on its own merit without simply rebutting Dawkins or quoting the Bible? Thanks. Ajkgordon 16:09, 18 December 2007 (EST) Three books made me an atheist Brief history of time, Koran and the christian Bible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JBuscombe (talk) Was it hysterical? I didn't think so. I thought it was well argued. Was it sarcastic? In places, most certainly. Does it produce good arguments for the non-existence of God or is it simply a sneery put-down to the rise of fundamentalism? That's really a value judgment. Actually Dawkins doesn't say in the book that God doesn't exist - he only points out that his existence is wildly improbable. He does however take some time disposing of the "proofs" of God's existence. Was it simply preaching to the converted or could it "raise consciousness" among believers? He explicitly states that his objective was consciousness raising. I think it would work for both audiences. Can you recommend an opposing book that argues for the existence of God on its own merit without simply rebutting Dawkins or quoting the Bible? Sorry, can't think of one. Hope you get other responses for others who have read the book.--British_cons (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2007 (EST) Ta. Ajkgordon 08:11, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Unlocking

Aschlafly, any chance of you unlocking this article any time soon so that the errors can be corrected? OurMike 10:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

OurMike, I've been extremely patient with your comments and rule violations here. Your last 33 edits have been talk, talk, talk, which may hold the all-time record. Usually such rule violators are blocked much earlier than that.

The entry here has no identified errors. Conservapedia exists to tell the truth and will not compromise its purpose to mollify those made uncomfortable by it. The entry tells the truth. I suggest you comply with our rules and improve the encyclopedia here before wasting more time on your discomfort with the insights in this particular entry. Godspeed for the New Year.--Aschlafly 10:47, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly, I identified three very specific errors in the article here and made a list of them eariler in this talk page - see Talk:Richard_Dawkins#Errors_in_the_article. You asked me to do this earlier in our discussion but then failed to respond to them. I have taken considerable pains to try to alert you to the factual errors in this article, and provide you with clear and unambiguous evidence which would improve the glaring inaccuracy in this entry. Unfortunately I'm unable to make any improvements to this particular article due to it being locked. OurMike 10:57, 1 January 2008 (EST) ...actually, it is unlocked... --JakeC 11:04, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Good lord, so it is. My mistake. OurMike 11:05, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Reversion explained

Order's second edit introduced a redundancy; his first was imprecise.--Aschlafly 21:22, 3 January 2008 (EST)

First, it is a particular museum of natural history. Not sure if the future entry Museum of Natural History will be specifically the Oxford museum, or an entry on any museum of natural history. In the latter case it shouldn't be capitalized. Either way, the Oxford musea (Pittrivers and Natural History) are part of the university, not owned by it. Oxford has a structure that is different from most other universities in the world (with an exception of Cambridge, maybe). Second, what is imprecise about "endowed position"? Order 21:37, 3 January 2008 (EST)





Reversion unexplained

Were you intending to do me the courtesy of explaining your reversion of my edit? --GDewey 16:58, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Your changes added at least one error, deleted information, and changed numerous things. I don't have time to explain all the flaws now. For starters, you claimed he became a professor after spending 2 years at Berkeley!--Aschlafly 17:28, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I'll take that as a no, shall I? --GDewey 20:09, 4 January 2008 (EST) P.S. You are, of course, entirely wrong. My edit was correct. I can only assume that the real reason that you "don't have time to explain all the flaws" is because there weren't any. --GDewey 17:09, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Tidy up

This article needs a tidy up. It seems to me rather messy and doesn't have a particularly logical flow. I won't comment on the potentially slanderous and inaccurate claims of the "misleading" and "fraudulent" aspects of Dawkins' professorship - the arguments for deletion of that particular part of this article have been raked over many times and the author(s) of those remarks are unlikely to be swayed.

I suggest, however, that it is structured better and I suggest the following.

Intro: status as populariser of science, champion of Darwinism, confrontational anti-theist.

Early life, education, early career.

Major books and other works and the controversy they have created. However, the article should describe what the books are about rather than simply listing criticisms of them.

Criticisms of Dawkins' opinions and work from religious apologists.

Criticisms of Dawkins' opinions and work from other scientists.

Most of the content would stay but just be re-ordered and re-worded where necessary. It would make the article much more readable. Ajkgordon 11:20, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Oh, and pictures of his critics all over the place are distracting and not especially helpful. Ajkgordon 12:43, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Your reorganization would introduce placement bias by pushing criticisms out of view for most readers. Often you see that on Wikipedia, where the misleading stuff goes first and the truth is pushed way, way down and out of sight until the end.--Aschlafly 12:58, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Not at all. The intro itself should cover the major controversies and criticisms as, certainly from this site's perspective, they form much of his defining characteristics. Then more controversy in the second section after the intro, (I can't see there would be any controversy of his early life, education and early career but that section would be and is pretty short), and further controversy in the remaining sections I listed. No, the article could remain as critical of Dawkins as it is now but would become much more readable. Ajkgordon 13:05, 7 January 2008 (EST)

To Clarify This Whole Mess

As there still seems to be some questionmark, in some people's minds, over the legitimacy of Richard Dawkins 'professorship', this seems to indicate that Oxford University considers the post of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science a 'professorship', and that Richard Dawkins holds it. Now, unless someone here is basically saying they are more qualified than Oxford University itself as to what does or does not constitute a 'professorship', then that seems to be the end of the matter, and the article should be corrected, unless this site wants to leave itself open to accusations of the same kind of bias and ineptitude it accuses Wikipedia of. Zmidponk 22:05, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Oxford University might think he's a professor, but does Merriam-Webster? Feebasfactor 22:27, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If you read the archives of this talk page you will see that Merriam-Webster does indeed think that Dawkins is a professor. --GDewey 22:32, 25 January 2008 (EST) Yes, I wrote to Merriam-Webster and they replied specifically stating they consider him to fulfil their definition of Professor. But when I posted that here the response was "How would Merriam-Webster know?"--British_cons (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2008 (EST) Ah, but what about the disclaimer on this page? It could apply to Dawkins, could it not? Feebasfactor 22:47, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Again, there has been previous discussion. The simple answer, however, is that even if the disclaimer does apply, it only relates to "...the precise academic subject area in which the title is held...". It does not indicate that any individual referred to as "professor" (or whatever other title) might lose that title. The fact that the libelous portion of the article has remained (notwithstanding edits made by me and others) is a stain on the reputation of this site. --GDewey 22:55, 25 January 2008 (EST)

It is undeniable, however, that there is no direct documentation confirming Dawkins ever passed through the peer review process required for professorship; that can only be inferred from other documents under the a priori assumption he is a truly legitimate professor. Feebasfactor 23:02, 25 January 2008 (EST) No direct documentation? You know that?

For crying out loud, Oxford says that he is a professor. If you have some proof to the contrary please post it. Put us all out of our misery. --GDewey 23:16, 25 January 2008 (EST) Given that the distinction committee gave him the title, we have to assume that he holds the title legally. Unless you have proof that someone exceeded its authority, Feebas. Do you have such evidence? Order 08:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

None. But Please don't shoot the messenger. Feebasfactor 17:09, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Just because he has made himself look foolish doesn't mean that you have to also. --GDewey 17:19, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Well, it was an interesting exercise in playing Devil's Andy's Advocate, and it nicely showed just how hilariously senseless the long-term discussion up to this point has been. Here's the thing: On CP, Andy alone decides what truth is and what counts as evidence. And Andy decided that no matter what Oxford or M-W say, Dawkins is not a real professor. You can compare this to the Gun Control discussions. Or to the discussion about JKR (Main Page talk). Or the discussion about drugs. Or the Pulitzer Prize. It's the same issue over and over again. No matter how much evidence you find, no matter how completely you blast Andy's "arguments" out of the water, no matter how much you question his made-up "obvious" statistics, no matter how much you dispute his "indisputable" conclusions, you can't prevent Andy from pushing his agenda. Period. This article is lost. Andy has spoken. Give it up already. Go on, edit something else... and pray that Andy doesn't decide to "improve" the article you worked on. Or even better, go to Wikipedia. They don't have night-time editing restrictions "rights", they don't have image upload restrictions "rights", and nobody threatens to ban you just because you didn't fulfill some completely arbitrary (and ever-changing) productivity ratio. --Jenkins 18:12, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Jenkins, I see that you violated our 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk, and I also see that you've been blocked, so I won't belabor the point. Yes, those more interested in talk than substance should go elsewhere. Maybe Wikipedia welcomes endless talk. We want substance here.--Aschlafly 20:50, 28 January 2008 (EST) In that case, YOU provide 'substance' that backs up YOUR assertation that Dawkins is NOT a professor. Merriam-Webster, the very people quoted as defining 'professor' in a way that Dawkins does not fit, flatly disagrees with you. Oxford University flatly disagrees with you. In sh