Evolutionary biologist and current zeitgeist leader Richard Dawkins has a new two part film showing, which is a follow up to his critical attack on religious belief The Root of All Evil?. His latest film, The Enemies of Reason takes on the paranormal and superstition, all in the name of reason, rational thought and evidence.

Towards the end of the first part of his new film, Dawkins discusses the erosion of critical thought based on evidence, specifically referring to dangers posed by the internet and wikipedia. Speaking in front of a backdrop of scrolling wikipedia pages, he singles out wikipedia's ability to quickly communicate falsehoods. Spooky, ominous music accompanies his piece! Hopefully a transcript will follow, and a link to the film.

KEWWWL!

I have to admit, I've read two of Dawkins' books, including the most recent one ("The God Delusion")... which I suppose makes me a "fan." Though I've never actually called myself an atheist, for some reason - I prefer "ignorant," which in addition to being equally true, actually does a much better job of getting people to drop the subject.

Anyway, if he's an enemy of Wikipedia, maybe one of us should send him a "fan letter." Obviously, getting someone of his stature to actually register here as a member would be a major coup, though I suspect there are a few existing members who would disagree very strongly with his stance on certain issues...

Below is a rough transcript of Dawkins's musings on the internet and WP. They're nothing new, and his insight is brief and narrow, but his current status as a vanguard intellectual makes them important nevertheless. The film was described as "the most important broadcast of the year so far" by the Guardian, and ratings in the UK are likely to be good.

Dawkins chats with sociologist Steve Fuller, who puts forward a post modernist argument of the benefits of the internet, and discusses how individuals are able to find their own "truths" free from authority and "experts". A sceptical Dawkins, who believes that this thinking is "rooted in the relativist agenda" replies:


Then, accompanied by the ominous music and backed a screen of scrolling WP pages, Dawkins states to camera:


What is interesting is that Dawkins dismisses conspiracy theories, blogs, and the devaluing of evidence as "Wikipedia World". Surely evidence in itself that Wikipedia is fast becoming synonymous with bullshit. This trend is unlikely to be averted any time in the near future.

Mr. Dawkins has in fact edited Wikipedia (see here). It's interesting how he writes here how good he thinks Wikipedia generally is. But that was a year ago, maybe he changed his mind.

I watched his programme yesterday, and it was brilliant

Like Somey, I would consider myself a "fan" of Richard Dawkins. I like his clarity, even though I do have a post modern streak within me that I can't always disguise. And, despite endless claims to the contrary, he is an extremely polite polemicist. Which leads me to believe his tone on WP a year ago is a result of his innate 1950s English politeness to the WP admins rather than a vote of support for WP.

Dawkins's message regarding religion, which is fairly uncontroversial in most of the Western world, seems to be aimed more at the US than anywhere else. And I imagined that it would be our friends in Iowa that would be more wary of Dawkins than most. Somey has bucked that stereotype! So much for my personal Iowa straw poll.

Here is the beginning of "Root of all evil", Dawkins's film from 2 years ago on You tube. The rest is easy to find.

Yes, but I'm a good little girl and I'd bite my tongue for the public good.

And your reward for this? :/

Interesting.

Dawkins's "Wikipedia World" quote now appears on the Channel 4 website, which is a good sign.

And some blogger links to this thread to highlight Dawkins's brief critique.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Dawkins had to deal with some minor biographical errors on WP, creating a named account and confirming it via email. I know because I was one of the editors who contacted him and got a reply. I remember that he did his best to be civil and even gracious but seemed a bit annoyed. The error in question was something trivial; whether he had edited some magazine he'd never heard of.

You can find the diffs with only a little digging. However, you should know that he is not generally as accessible as, say, Daniel Dennett, because he gets tons of mail and has to have it filtered by his secretary. The odds are that he'll never see what you send, much less reply.

Al

That's our Richard.

Perhaps it is worth hooking this thread up with Richard Dawkins.net, which has a lively forum of its own I notice.

I wish he'd join up, as I could really use some help with my Theory Of Sockpuppet Evolution Through Clownal Selection.

Jonny

Ok, I dug up the letter:



There you have it.

Al

I confess that I have read only snippets of what Dawkins and Keen have said about amateurism in Wikipedia, but just from that sample there is something about it that doesn't quite ring true.

I think that it's this. Amateurs are not the dominant force in Wikipedia — amateurs are people who engage in a skilled activity for the pure love of doing it. I am such an amateur in many areas that I've studied as an avocation for decades, but my love of the subject draws me on to learn ever more about it, even when I can't get paid for it. I don't see many people like that in Wikipedia. At any rate, true amateurs like that seem to end up as the same kind of road-kill as experts and professionals, the common factor being that they are people who genuinely care about their chosen subjects.

There is some other motive that drives the dominant culture in Wikipedia that has nothing to do with loving a given subject area. There are those who evidently love exerting their will to power over a topic that they neither know nor love for its own sake. There are those who get their jollies from bashing another person over the head. But I do not count that as being the same thing at all.

What Wikipedia has spawned is a whole new species of sub-amateurs, even anti-amateurs. They are fighters not lovers.

And it shows …

Jonny

That's an interesting point. I would say that these people are advocates, not enthusiasts. For example, despite my disparaging remarks about WP's over-coverage of BtvS, I'm actually a big fan. I'm an enthusiast, though, not an advocate. I have no interest in debating whether Tara's fate is actually an example of anti-lesbian bias, much less editing WP to reflect my views.

In contrast, I am an advocate for such things as science and secular humanism, and an opponent of such things as creationism and Objectivism. In these matters, I am indeed a fighter, not a lover. Or, rather, I was before I pissed off Jayjg and got shot in the back of the head.

If WP had some content-resolution mechanisms that worked, there'd be room for fighters, lovers and all the rest. The fighters would have to tone down and become researchers and debaters, not simply thugs who murder each other. And the lovers could express their devotion without turning WP into a temple for nerds.

Al

No, that isn't quite what I'm talking about.

There is nothing about being an amateur scholar that says you have to be incompetent and shoddy. That makes you an advocate for things like accuracy, textual evidence, and — THE HORROR — truth. So those are things that you are willing to go to the mat for, so to speak. If that makes you a fighter, well, okay. Words are funny, but the situation is not. Wikipedia is too full of people who fight for the wrong reasons, who fight for the wrong things, who do not fight to improve the quality of articles. People who fight for quality in Wikipedia usually end up falling or being pushed on their swords.

Jonny

Far be it for me to understand you on my first try..

You're correct that being an amateur doesn't mean being ignorant. It just means you don't get paid for it, perhaps because there's no money to be made or because you're making more money doing something else.

I know someone who's not only a huge fan of The Simpsons but has (no pun intended) an encyclopedic knowledge of the series, including the frightening ability to quote whole episodes from memory. If there were a job out there for this particular skill, I bet they'd take it. As it stands, they're concentrating on their day job for now, taking advantage of their copious intellect for more mundane purposes.

Likewise, being a passionate advocate doesn't mean you havs a fucking clue of what you're talking about. For a fine example, take a look at creationists, who rarely even understand what they're arguing against and are driven more by confused moral fervor than any interest in seeking the truth of the matter.

Unfortunately, getting WP content to fit your desires is more a battle of wills than a battle of wits, so the process favors passion over expertise. Is that what you were getting at?

Al

There may be a difference in perspective that comes from the fact that I stayed away from journalistic articles and political subjects in Wikipedia. It's not that I'm apathetic about current events or politics — it's just that an accidental brush or two with folks in those hot-spots of Wikipedia was more than enough to tell me that no sane person would base his political choices on the information coming from those directions.

So aside from random wikignomism — compounded by a touch of OCD that forces me to fix typos and worse offenses against grammar as soon as I see them, in article space, you understand — I stuck to subjects that I had studied for 3 or 4 decades at least. None of those subject areas — logic, math, phil, psych — should have been the occasion for all that much controversy among scholars, amateur or professional. A person can be an advocate for Freud, or Jung, or Skinner, or whoever, but that doesn't have any affect on the fact that X wrote the words Y in the place Z, and that's really all there is to it. Of course, no decent exposition can avoid a measure of interpretation and a passel of translation into more familiar idioms, so there are things to wrangle over when it comes to that, but that is a process that most scholars are used to working through without too much bloodshed or clamour for the excommunication of people with different readings. Most of the time.

But give some players a big bottle o' ban buttons — especially players whose tender egos are too easily bruised by the very idea that they don't know everything about a subject they heard about last week — and pretty soon they've become hopelessly eddicted to the fast, temporary solution afforded by its tension-relieving virtues.

Jonny

I haven't read Dawkins myself, but I am aware of one person who has strong disagreements with him, and that is Lyndon LaRouche (although I suspect they would see eye to eye on the topic of Wikipedia.) LaRouche took exception to a lecture by Dawkins, covered in the London Independent 14 years ago, in which Dawkins said that belief in God was a disorder of the brain analogous explicitly to a transmittable “computer virus.” The address had included the formulation: “These are arbitrary, hereditary beliefs which people are told at a critical age, passed on from your parents rather like a virus.” He had added: “that 'evolutionary theory' has removed any scientific basis for arguing the existence of God, and said that people who believe in a God who is responsible for the order and beauty of the universe are 'stupid.' ” The LaRouche regarded these comments as an implicit attack on an “informal proof of God” presented in 1961 by Kurt Gödel, a man much admired by LaRouche. LaRouche responded to Dawkin's remarks in an article called On the Subject of God.

I've been onto the Richard Dawkins.net forum to canvass opinions of Dawkins's statements.

So far, responses have been largely naive and pro-wikipedia. Here are some examples:


Not all were supportive. Here is another post:

The forum is register to read only, which only takes a few seconds. Take a look.
Board index ‹ General ‹ Richard Dawkins ‹ Dawkins's views on Wikipedia
http://richarddawkins.net/

How does Gutenberg + Wikipedia = University?

I think you're reading way too much into this. The criticism - That Wikipedia pushes conspiracy theories - is completely off-base. The entire rest of the paragraph is a general "The internet lets people discuss ideas! OH NOES!" Chances are some writer was sitting around in his office trying to come up with an opening line to that paragraph. He probably discarded 'This world', 'This world of the web', and all sorts of other bits of alliteration before settling on 'Wikipedia world' because it sounded kind of snappy. Later, some producers were trying to come up with something to do with the background and decided to run with Wikipedia, partly because they were sure the foundation wouldn't cry foul and file a lawsuit.

Off-the-cuff hypothesis: If the overall transcript is examined, you will find that alliteration is used more often than it is used by the general public.

Hi Kato, I popped over from the Richard Dawkins Forum (RDF). I acknowledge some naivety in myself and others, which you have helped correct. But we are prompted by, "Wikipedia world presents both great opportunity and huge danger" (Dawkins, EOR-pt1) - this leads his conclusion, after the debunking of astrologers, spiritualists and water-diviners. In this context, many of us will focus on defending what is good about Wikipedia and the Internet, in reaction to a guidance against both.

I posted an analysis of Dawkins's conclusion in the RDF thread Enemies of Reason - Internet as dangerous conspiracism?, though not specifically on Wikipedia. In this, I considered the "Wikipedia world" phrase to be more alliteration than specific target, and focussed on his particular criticism of the Internet.

As RDF is 'register to read', I could paste my article here if members are interested, but I'm new to WR and it's quite a long post. I have also discussed relative criticism in Kato's RDF thread Dawkins's views on Wikipedia.


Jerôme, from RDF, isn't here to explain, and over on RDF, we tend to disagree. But on this I agree with his reaction to Kato's canvassing. (I'm not defending his literal equation.) My reaction to Dawkins's "Wikipedia World" was focussed on the more general concpet of 'Internet as conspiracism'. I found the criticisms to be imbalanced, and therefore dangerous in the opposite manner to Dawkins's "huge danger". Praising the Internet or Wikipedia in general terms, isn't necessarily exposing naivety or ignoring bad features, it can be reaction to imbalanced statements.


Your off-the-cuff hypothesis is probably correct, but I checked my transcript of his conclusion and found this to be the only alliteration (unless you count "utterly unfounded"). And I would be very concerned if the wording of Dawkins's conclusion were not primarily his own construction (it's the titles of his programmes which are effectively imposed on him by Channel 4).

At first, I thought Dawkins was essentially choosing a convenient alliteration, perhaps a bit ignorantly (considering Wikipedia's current, general veracity). But I now think that he did mean to criticise Wikipedia - as being the most influential information source outside of conventional authoritative structures. By 'authoritative' I mean both 'acknowledged accuracy' and 'arising from authority' - I in my view, Dawkins considers 'good reasoning' comes through organisations with authority, not loose social processes. This quality of being authoritative is what Dawkins is pushing, which ties in with his general target of the Internet. Without a criticism of the qualities of authority, and being poorly constructed in terms of evidence-based reasoning, I found Dawkins's conclusion section disturbing.

Bonce.

Welcome Bonce, and thanks for coming over to play on our home turf. I'll respond in due course to your thought provoking post. Though, as you can imagine, I disagree with quite a lot of what you say. I will admit that Dawkins was playing fast, loose and was very general in his criticism of wikipedia. Seeing it as simply at the surface of a swamp of internet misadventures.

I imagine that other Reviewers would have something to say about this, including Alienus, who corresponded with Dawkins over his wikipedia biography.

Let this history lesson be a good one for all who kowtow to the "Establishment"...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4243864-103684,00.html



Dawkins and whoever else talking about "real science" have too many skeletons in their own closet to criticize others -- especially those who make the status quo THINK hard of their own closed minded ways to stifle the very science they proclaim is essential.

It's not just religious folks with pitchforks out there, it's the "Establishment" itself (especially what they did to Sir Hoyle to challenge "pop science" and their mob).

I'm no fan of Dawkins (he hasn't a clue about statistics!), but it's a bit thick to blame him for what happened to Fred Hoyle.

Dawkins is part of the "Establishment". That entity that tries to brow beat fellow scientists to believe only the "pop science" theories of the day.

If you think Wikipedia is ugly with admins trashing editors who are fact checkers and who question management policies, you haven't seen what this "Establishment" can do when you buck their ideals. They have their own social pecking order, that is anything but "scientific" when it attacks you (which is what Hoyle faced with the "Big Bang" true believers). But unlike Wikipedia, they try to hide behind a cloak of "respectability".

Wikipedia has it's image and management problems, but it's hypocritical to criticise an online entity, yet be smug by the crap in your own community.



Sir FREDERICK Hoyle. Happy now?

So if Sir Frederick Hoyle (Plumian Professor at Cambridge, Fellow of the Royal Society, sometime president of the Royal Astronomical Society) was not part of the Establishment, who was?

Indeed. This is simply crap, I'm afraid. And far removed from Dawkins's view of wikipedia.

I think that Revision is making a useful point here. Remember that the original "Encyclopedist" movement was essentially an attempt to codify an "establishment" version of science and other intellectual pursuits, in order to freeze out competing doctrines. This was an important feature of the "Enlightenment," which was essentially an aristocratic reaction against the tremendous ferment of ideas produced by the Renaissance. And let us recall that Jimbo describes himself as an "Enlightenment kind of guy."

Did you read why he resigned that Plumian Professorship (and how many professors have you read that resigned a pinnacle position not due to scandal)? He resigned because hard science was taking back seat to populists and politicals. He resigned because the "Establishment" (which doesn't mean "management") was more interested in promoting falsehoods.

A good example is Stephen Hawkings. His Black Hole theory was a mess, but unlike what the "Establishment" did to Hoyle over his co-founded Steady-State theory, they treated Hawkings with kid gloves as he was willing to work within the "Big Bang" framework. Only when the pressure to fix the mess (which isn't fixed just the seats have changed) with the Hubble discoveries, did he explain that data could escape the Event Horizon.

But because he knows what side of the bread to butter, Hawkings and the rest of the populist promoters are free from the hammer of the "Establishment".

That "Establishment" tries it damnest to promote a theory as some defacto "fact" (much like Wikipedia's cronies tries with strongarming articles to be written their way as "fact"), and will do everything in their power to marginalize and condemn (can you imagine scientists throwing eggs at conventions at those that buck their status quo? They do this to publicly shame fellow scientists who won't conform). Only the Hoyles who reached the top of the pinnacle can be dissenters, but at extreme cost to their reputations (which scientists need to have as a sword in that den of wolves). Hoyle faced some of the worst of the worst the science community could dish out -- including a rival's WIFE writing poetry to dis him -- but he wouldn't compromise his ethics as a hard science man.

That's why he resigned. I admire the guy for throwing all that prestige away to stand on principle over popularity. The Dawkins are propagandists riding whatever "pop science" train that comes around so they will look good -- yet never facing the same fire they throw at others in their sheltered rail cars.

EDIT: Typos

I've read his autobiography. I don't recall him saying anything of what you suggest. Perhaps you'd care to find his autobiography and quote the relevant passage.

And who is this Hawkings, and what evidence do you have that his theory was a mess? If you mean Stephen Hawking, his work on black holes was done jointly with Roger Penrose, a close friend of Hoyle and a supporter of the Steady State theory.

Post #25, from his obituary @ The Guardian.

It's too complicated to discuss here about the whole Steady-State/Quasi-Steady-State and "Big Bang" mess. There's issues with the "Big Bang" theory, that isn't said and often squashed. The whole background microwave radiation survey results/redshift/dark energy/dark matter issues are but some of them. SST/QSST isn't the placenta (it has issues too), but the revulsion of any alternative universal cosmological theory is literally stabbed down, not on evidence, but popularity and these "pop scientists" preaching their gospel.

My main concern is science itself taking a backseat to "pop science", and how the community and especially this "Establisment" mindset does to dissenters. From the lay publications like Sky and Telescope to more scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles. If scientists can't propose a theory that can unseat the "favorite" because of the cost to their reputation (which is everything to scholars), it's no longer ABOUT science, but petty politics.

What ever happened to reason?

It appears that you can read the forum without registering now, here is Kato's thread.

Ok, here's a good one!


Kato responded well to this later on, but this is something a lot of people say. I suppose if someone is ignorant on a particular subject they do not know if what they are reading is true or false anyway. It is sort of like the mindset, "Why do I have to learn more, I already know enough..." That is a person that is ignorant to what they do not know; therefore, they know everything.

Ok I got a bit esoteric there, the person asked for examples. As for specific examples, if nothing can be readily found (and really Kato supplied them) then hold on a sec, just let me edit something! I'm feeling like introducing a few false hoods into some articles and link this fellow to them in about a month. The trouble accepting that we don't know what we don't know is an error of human nature, I suspect. There is no way to tell how much false information is coming from any source, and it is certainly harder to determine that when the source is everyone with internet access. The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe that the flawed system and dysfunctional community of wikipedia is simply a flaw of human nature. Whose fault is it that Wikipedia is exalted to something more than it is and perhaps ever intended to be? The blame can be spread, but my opinion is that most of the blame resides outside of the WP structure. But I may be getting a bit misanthropic in my outlook. The general public's ignorance in allowing Wikipedia to "change truth" is irritating me these days. This probably would not even be an issue if Wikipedia had not entered "mainstream consciousness".

One of these days people will view Wikipedia for what it is, but for the moment the abundance of internet users are blissfully ignorant.

And Dan Tobias made a post on the second page of this thread and all I have to say is: Dan, are you feeling well? Your post looks entirely out of place and I'm sure no one at that forum but Kato will understand what you are saying. I've said it once, but I'll say it again, you've been debating the badsites fools too long! Take a break for your health.

But all and all, engaging other groups of people that do not know a lot about wikipedia is something we should do more of. Respectfully and in a non-wikipedia insider way, of course (see Dan's wikipedia insider post in that thread, I honestly worry about his health).

Jonny

Why can you not write as lucidly and directly as this all of the time? What you wrote here I wholeheartedly agree with.

There's no need to put in math symbols in place of words when you have a strong point to put across.

(quoting myself) It seems these threads might be viewable without registering - it isn't clear what the policy is. Anyhow, I assume nobody want's them pasted here. In addition, I have reinterpreted Dawkins somewhat, with "he did mean to criticise Wikipedia", posted here earlier.


Thanks Kato, hope you have time to consider my two RDF posts.


Revision, I take your points about Hoyle as being an instance of where scientific authorities fail to function according to their prescribed rational methods, i.e. they express their own interests. The degree of compromise will be a matter of argument, and I would suggest has greater effect as a system dynamic compared to an isolated problem.

Knowledge as social product
This notion of a self-interested group (an 'establishment' being a powerful one) is part of the broad case - all knowledge emerges from social processes. Such as: a casual discussion, a director's board meeting, an academic conference, a technician running an experiment, or a child observing wildlife. All of these processes are mediated by social features:

• the human condition - limited faculties, various fallibilities - therefore every person is capable of various forms of error;
• organisation - roles are provided by organisations - organisations function to decide which people are chosen, and how they perform (and vice versa - the function of an organisation is the product of it's members and structures);
• societal paradigms - whether 'orthodox' or 'alternative', ways of thinking are a product of historical and contemporary social knowledge, alongside the individual's and/or organisation's features;
• interpretation - whether of observation or of social communication; and
• agency - all individuals, groups and organisations function through motive - the resulting agendas permeate all structures to some degree.
• Etc.

These factors are too complex to model in full for any particular knowledge-producing process, but we should acknowledge that they are inherent to such processes. Of course, a feature of these processes is that they can be more, or less, rational, objective, disinterested, etc. Such qualities of veracity are never guaranteed. We can judge veracity by subjective heuristic, such as "scientists are as good as their expertise" and "politicians sometimes lie", etc. Any judgment of efficacy is more substantive when we understand the underlying knowledge - we could say "they are misrepresenting the epidemiological data", or "their methodology does not justify how their conclusions are presented", etc. However, our 'expertise' is usually limited - we cannot be both specialists and polymaths. Therefore, we should be careful how we make judgments of veracity, because mistaken judgments may propagate throughout our paradigms.

In summary, knowledge is affected by the social process from which it emerges. Thus, for example, 'expertise' is not a guarantor of veracity. Although we can judge a source as more, or less, veracious, we cannot assume that it is. At least, if we do assume veracity, we should acknowledge our methods and paradigms, and expose them to those who disagree. Our attitude to the veracity of knowledge from 'authorities' ranges from gullible naivety to paranoid conspiracism. Somewhere in between sits scepticism.


I interpreted Revision's point as being that social processes in science have an effect on veracity. This is the problem with Dawkins's alternatives to the Internet/Wikipedia. So I don't see it as "simply crap", but relevant, though rather indirectly. Or maybe you were dismissing a different idea?


Hesrchel you point out that, historically, 'authoritative' could mean a control agenda. If a control agenda works, then we won't know it. Likewise, if a more subtle agenda affects knowledge, we may not account for it. For example, a scientist might 'play it safe', or a corporation may not to disclose ('bury') information that it would otherwise promote, etc.


I know this is WR, and thus the focus is on identifying/discussing/disseminating/fixing the problems with Wikipedia. However, I have suggested that Dawkins's criticism cannot be treated in isolation of other media. For example, "Praising the Internet or Wikipedia in general terms, isn't necessarily exposing naivety or ignoring bad features, it can be reaction to imbalanced statements".

BobbyBombastic, you raise the social issues ("human nature") which cause people to accept knowledge without knowing its veracity. This problem applies to all sources, all media. It is an important paradox - "I am never knowingly mistaken".

On WP 'errors', I have only been aware of bad deletions, misquotes and bald assertions in political articles, and after the recent media furore, edits on self-interested articles. Regardless of the paradox, I have not become aware of mistaken or deceptive articles in general knowledge areas. To say that people are naive, or "blissfully ignorant", it would help to quantify the level of misinformation within Wikipedia. Perhaps WR has such data. Then we can put people's comments into context. We can compare Wikipedia's accuracy (alongside it's accessibility, immediacy, coverage) against the alternatives - not just Britannica, but newspapers and television. This is the context in which most people will judge Wikipedia.


The dtobias post on RDF reads fine for me - I must be missing some subtleties within WP/WR culture.

Boncé et alaya,

I hadn't been tracking this thread on account of the nubious distractions, but some of what I see begins to look interesting to me.

But it would help us attention-span-challenged old φolks (ASCOΦ's) to digest it in chunkier chunks if there weren't so many long and complicated polyphonies going on @ oncé, in a manner reminiscent of the old email discussion lists.

Gratia in futuro,

Jonny

Incidentally, one other odd fact about Dawkins is that he is reputed to be an advocate of Great Ape personhood, according to Wikipedia, which for some reason has an article on the subject. This article appears to be another one of SlimVirgin's pet projects (!).

Not too surprising. Animal welfare extremists want to argue that at least some animals are so similar to humans that they deserve comparable rights. Great apes are the obvious candidate for such treatment initially, then if that works they'll progress through dogs, tortoises and fish down to Wikipedia Review admins (or maybe they won't go that far).

In Jonny's defense, it takes a lot more talent, time, and skill for Jonny to write in his "math rebus" style than in his "traditional English" style. If anything, his math-speak forces us to slow down and consider what he's saying, even if it's sometimes (often?) at the expense of some of us giving up on a particular post. If anything, he has certainly built a brand and a voice with his math-speak language. You know a Jon Awbrey post when you see one written that way!

Agreed, though, if he's writing for an audience other than the WR, he should stick to the plain, old, boring, traditional fonts and spellings.

Greg

Will do, Bonce, and apologies for the lack of a reply. It's been a bit hectic here the last few days. And your interesting posts require some contemplation.