RE: Where do you rate on Dawkins scale?
July 25, 2012 at 5:36 am
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2012 at 5:41 am by Welsh cake.)
This boils down to a problem with rating systems. I don't believe a person's belief or non-belief can be accurately represented on a scale. Technically an atheist should be zero on the scale since its the default state, but then where the hell are ignostics and apatheists supposed to feature? Are they a 1/2 position on the scale? Irreligious but not quite atheistic? Or a -1 position on the scale because they consider the entire concept and/or term "god" as meaningless? Do apatheists not feature at all because they don't care? What about the indeterminate group who simply don't know?
Scales are inherently flawed. Take a gander at the lovely colour coded International Nuclear Event Scale for example. At the time of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster no one knew if they should rate the event as a '5', '6' or '7' on the scale. And WTF is the difference between a Major accident and a Serious accident anyway? Also, WTF is the difference between a major impact on people and environment and a significant impact on people and environment?
Its all a pile of bollocks thought up by business studies analysts who have way too much free time on their hands just as they create a fucking flowchart for people to work out how to use a toilet.
Its just like reviewers who hand out 1-10 scores for video games or films when any halfwit should know complex opinions and critic cannot be accurately represented numerically, irrespective of criteria if they label 1 as rubbish and 10 as "perfect" (there's no such thing), inevitably the subject in question maybe scored 5, 6 or 7 out of 10 giving you little to no indication as to whether the content is worth picking up/renting/owning or not.
Scales are inherently flawed. Take a gander at the lovely colour coded International Nuclear Event Scale for example. At the time of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster no one knew if they should rate the event as a '5', '6' or '7' on the scale. And WTF is the difference between a Major accident and a Serious accident anyway? Also, WTF is the difference between a major impact on people and environment and a significant impact on people and environment?
Its all a pile of bollocks thought up by business studies analysts who have way too much free time on their hands just as they create a fucking flowchart for people to work out how to use a toilet.
Its just like reviewers who hand out 1-10 scores for video games or films when any halfwit should know complex opinions and critic cannot be accurately represented numerically, irrespective of criteria if they label 1 as rubbish and 10 as "perfect" (there's no such thing), inevitably the subject in question maybe scored 5, 6 or 7 out of 10 giving you little to no indication as to whether the content is worth picking up/renting/owning or not.
