Quote:
Originally Posted by dor  but you don't hestitate to point out logical falicies, or inaccurate statements....how is that not 'rude' then? |
Spelling and grammatical errors, though they grate on me, don't interfere with a person's explanation or argument; for me to redline them would be nitpicky and offensively unnecessary. Same goes with a person's use of words -- if they're mundane, no problem, and if they're more challenging, well, then I'm treated to the delight of learning a new word and presto! my brain evolves.
Speaking of biased judgements: You get all up-in-arms about others' prejudices, but I'd like to point out you've done exactly that about "Unweaving the Rainbow" with your statement: "But again, Dawkins I think, is trying set up a false, polarized argument and also making science the God of all things. As I said he's preaching his own 'religion'".
It sounds to me like Dawkins is harmonizing science and poetry, not polarizing them:
In Dawkins's world (and, he hopes, in ours), science is poetry; he ends his journey by referring to his title's author and subject, maintaining that "A Keats and a Newton, listening to each other, might hear the galaxies sing."
I'll check back with you on this after I read the book.