HELP!!! Richard Dawkins被大秦景教拋窒？
"In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented."
" Some of our regulars may be aware of the Australian hoax film in which I am shown apparently flummoxed and unable to answer a question about 'information content' increasing in evolution. Somebody has just pointed me to a new version of the clip on YouTube
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 ), which is interestingly different from the published version.
A full account of the hoax is given by Barry Williams, in the (Australian) Skeptic. I don't have the reference with me (I'm in Miami Airport, on my way to Galapagos) but it is given in the chapter of A Devil's Chaplain, called The Information Challenge. Briefly, the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question. At the end of the long pause, they cut to a scene of me talking about something completely different (presumably the answer to another question which was cut), to make it look as though I was evading the question by changing the subject.
In the original film, 'From a Frog to a Prince', the 'information content' question is put to me by a MAN. We see him in a bare room, very obviously not the well-furnished room in which I am shown (not) answering the question. The new version on YouTube is different in at least two respects. First, the question is put to me by a WOMAN (we don't see her). And while she is speaking I am obviously not listening to anybody asking questions (I would be looking straight at the questioner if so) but I am clearly lost in thought, the same long train of thought that persists for a long time after the question ends (intended to look embarrassingly long, as if I am incapable of answering the question).
There is another difference. In this new version of the film, I ask them to stop the camera (and this really happened, for the reason given above). Then there is the cut to me answering the completely different question, as if trying to change the subject. In the original film, my request to stop the camera is missing.
I've got to go and board the plane, but it might be quite interesting for somebody to post both versions of the film together on our website, so they can be compared directly.
"Asians have no sense of humor. Their idea of comedy is slapstick. Irony doesn't exist in Asian discourse. There are no comedians in Asia."
唉，咁你又點搵到呢段片呢？無睇過佢既About This Video 咩？個破綻就係：以我認識既沙文，係無理由咁唔小心既。
This video shows 2 popular videos on youtube of Richard Dawkins appearing to be stumped on a question played parallel. It exposes the continuity errors of his expressions during a question which he could have answered easily and has answered before. At least one of the videos is portraying him being stumped when in reality he just discovered they were creationists and was wondering how to best handle the situation.
After the video was uploaded, the link at the end stopped working. Due to many requests, I've posted working link of the article below.
Why the usual response is assuming people to be clever? (Did you read all the manual at home? How do you suppose someone read everything around the video?)
But a refusal to assume good faith? AKA, assuming people have good intention. (Assume good faith is a principle in Wiki)
i think both of them might b just only making the jokes to each other and to the whole board
ye know , our 家 離教者之家 's sufferring from a draught of visittors e.t.c. seemingly , so , they .........
[ 本帖最後由 prussianz 於 2008-3-22 04:55 編輯 ]