My problem is that he does not know a jot about science and pretends to do so..and with this... well he does not help. It is true that it also tranmmits an image of science that I do not like.. but ei.. that's his right...
Not so much to be a Rush Limbaugh of science taking data basically from his ass.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
My problem is that he does not know a jot about science and pretends to do so..
What are you talking about here? The guy's an ethologist. On what basis does an ethologist classify as someone who 'does not know a jot about science'?
(And lest some be mislead to think that physicists feel superior to other kinds of scientists, let me hasten to add that biologists very probably roll their eyes whenever a physicist tries his hand at biology...)
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Science is a lot of things. Being a qualified scientist in one field does not make you instantly and automatically qualified in any other field(s).
Yes, but then I never implied that it did. I said Dawkins was an ethologist. As an ethologist is a practising scientist (of animal behaviour), then knowing at least 'a jot' about science would be in order, wouldn't it. If kcurie meant 'physics', then that should have been said ... but it would have buggered up the force of the comment, by appearing to be something of a non-sequitur ('can't take anything Dawkins says seriously, he's not a physicist.')
That is, without context or elaboration, it appears to be exactly the sort of attitude the article is complaining about: people having reactions to Dawkins when they are largely unaware of what he is actually saying, or even what his area of expertise is. (Without context, kcurie's comment reads as if kcurie is unaware that Dawkins is actually a scientist).
'Consider a spherical cow', as the punch line of the joke about physicists goes ...
As an ethologist is a practising scientist (of animal behaviour), then knowing at least 'a jot' about science would be in order, wouldn't it. If kcurie meant 'physics', then that should have been said ...
I don't know what kcurie meant, but if indeed he meant 'physics' instead of 'science' then it's an example of hyperbole. Just a little while downthread I defend Dawkins using hyperbole, so surely kcurie should have the same license...
but it would have buggered up the force of the comment, by appearing to be something of a non-sequitur ('can't take anything Dawkins says seriously, he's not a physicist.')
Not at all. The objection was to Dawkins pulling data out of his butt. There is a world of difference between simply commenting on something that one is not knowledgeable about - which is something we all do from time to time - and trying to pass as a competent person while in reality pulling stuff out of one's butt.
Now, before we go down that road, I would like to emphasise that I'm guessing at kcurie's intentions here, which means that I really wouldn't like to take the discussion too far, because I'm making (more or less educated) guesses about a position that I don't hold myself. Which is frequently A Bad Idea. In general (from what little I have read), I find Dawkins' reasoning to range from excellent and tightly argued to execrable apologetics. Sometimes within the same text. But I haven't myself ever caught him pulling stuff about physics out of his butt, and I'm not competent to judge the rest of the specialist stuff he says.
That is why I asked what was meant.
There is a world of difference between simply commenting on something that one is not knowledgeable about - which is something we all do from time to time - and trying to pass as a competent person while in reality pulling stuff out of one's butt.
And how do you know Dawkins was not actually doing the former instead of the latter, during whatever it was knurie is objecting to? Let's say I comment on something I am not knowledgeable about - say, the US current account deficit - and screw up the numbers - the data - from memory. Which category is that in? Does it even matter, if I have otherwise made a good argument that does not hinge on a discussion of the US current account deficit, an argument in which it is largely tangential and brought up in the heat of debate? Do you think that might happen to Dawkins, as it does to most people who are engaged in public debate?
I agree with you about That Which is Frequently a Bad Idea ... :)
There are other important stuff in ethology but I do not know enough and I would say that he is/was a respected ethologists.
And I do nto move to physics or aspects of biology where he just plainly changes the observation to fit his world view.. just as any other religion person would do.
Now, he is an ethologist and the 'problem' (for want of a better term) of altruism in animals needs an explanation. You seem to be saying he isn't allowed to propose one in terms of natural selection because he isn't a molecular biologist or some sort of 'network' specialist. Respectfully, I think you are wrong about that. It comes down to the degree of specialization and atomization of knowledge that now exists. Mostly I think people here decry that, from what I have seen of the relevant threads ... but not when it's time to jump on Dawkins, apparently. Then everyone should strictly keep their mouths shut on whatever they aren't professional specialists in.
Sorry for any phrasing infelicities, I'm doing this on the run.
I would even hesitiate to write a book about the things I do know... much less the things I do not know a jot about.
He can certainly make the proposal in the community.. and he surely did.. and since the people were laughing all around he used his position to write a book... and people are reasonable either pissed at him or just do not consider him worhthwhile any more.
ANd I always mean as a scientists outside his field. As a person in the news, show man or so on I have complete respect bacuse I know is his right (though I must say we I do not agree with anything.. )
SO in other words, as people in the news with a view about religiona dn science.. look no problem.. I will always there to argue.. for example with Bill Maher... he is a show man he holds similar positions I would always disagree with him, I would say that his trial will backfire but I would always respect his point of view.
The day Bill Maher pretends to write a scientific book which is nothing more than a personal creatonism... well I would react as I react with the creationists... they just make up things from their butt.
And his proposal about altruistic behavior in ethology has been cosntantly repeteadly and insistenly sent to where it belongs.. the garbage.
A pleasure. I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
you are the media you consume.
My problem is that he does not know a jot about science and pretends to do so ...
Please make an effort to make intelligent comments. Hyperbole is one thing, crass absurdities are another. Others have made appropriate responses to this piece of idiocy. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
The selfish gene is basically creatonism in disguise.. his crationism of course.
Nothing about metabolic network, nothing about complex dynamics, nothing about ... well nothing.. jsut a book about non.-science pretneding it is about science.
If you want I can give you a point by point rebuttal of his book.. but I am tired, I have done it in other places..and sicussed them here.
And again.. I am not addressing his points which are related with his views about science and religion.. here I think like brit.. it is not how I look at it.. it is not how I would approach the topic..I think it will backfire... but I am happy that everybody has a different opinion... excellent.
His science... outside some animal behavior.. sorry.... he is just a bad scientists outside his field.. that's all... but I guess that hat pissed more people in the community is that.. well his theory makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm sorry you're tired it shows - how you have the nerve to criticise him with junk like this I don't understand - but, like you, in this case, I'm too tired to go through your drivel. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
It was no my intention to hurt you.. nor directly nor indireclty. it is clear you ahve invested a lot of personal attachment to Dawkins.. or at least this is how it looks.
One day I am sure, we will sit down happily discussing why you think he is very good at science, and I will defend the opposite... probably we will not convince each other but we would have a great time
But I think here now it is clearly not the moment.
Let me in any case, ask you personally for excuses if I ever hurt you or say something that you thought was an indirect attack.
I deeply apologize.
But I would suggest you apply this sort of tone to those outside ET too. No, I don't have a "personal attachment" to Dawkins, beyond respecting him as an obviously very intelligent, generally well-informed, courteous (see the Lynchburg Q& A video), witty guy who has deservedly received many awards and honours (see the diary). A bit of the Christian virtue of humility would seem appropriate in your case.
However I have nothing against informed, reasoned criticisms of him, just as he wouldn't. I DO object to uninformed attacks without even the pretense of any evidence. I object even more to unsupported insults like "asshole" (nanne) and your own absurd claim that "He doesn't know a jot about science".
But I would also defend others who were attacked in these ways. Thus I would defend Hitchens against unjustified criticisms or mere insults, although I despise his support for the attack on Iraq. That he was wrong about that does not cancel the fact that he is a very bright, extremely erudite, witty guy - which makes his loss to the left (in some important respects) all the more regretable.
Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
We say the most vile things about Bush, Blair and everybody outside here.
I do not see why Bush should be different than Hitchens or Dawkins.
I did not realized I had hit a soft spot and that by attacking Dawkins I was attacking you, and your perecpetion of him. The moment I saw that you were attached to him I apologized.
But this does not change my point of view. I think BVvush is a bastard, adn I do think Hitchens is a bastard and I do think Dawkins is wrong on this fight back agaisnt religion but I think he should be doing what he thinks is better and commend him for it.. and I also think he is a very very bad scientist.
It is just my humble opinion. But please, please, in no way take it personal, actually if you think he is right about his approach to religion, great, we can discuss it. And if you think he is a very good scientists..w ell I doubt anything or quote I can bring here will convince you otherwise.
But please, please, do not take it personal. he is not here in ET.. adn we deserve respect to people here always and to epople outside ET that we think they deserve it. And while Dawkins as a social commentator deserves my respect (though not my agreement) Dawkins as a scientist does not.
Huge hug ted.
This Blog has been created for the purpose of debunking Evangelical Christianity. We are ex-Christians, ex-ministers, and even ex-apologists for the Christian faith. We are now freethinkers, skeptics, agnostics, and atheists. With the diversity of our combined strengths we seek to debunk Christianity. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/
This Blog has been created for the purpose of debunking Evangelical Christianity. We are ex-Christians, ex-ministers, and even ex-apologists for the Christian faith. We are now freethinkers, skeptics, agnostics, and atheists. With the diversity of our combined strengths we seek to debunk Christianity.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/
But that isn't basically what he's trying to do - I made clear in the diary what he IS trying to do.
So, criticism based on the idea that he's mainly trying to convert fundamentalist or even very committed moderate Christians is entirely irrelevant - see the damned diary.
As I've said I have no problem with reasoned criticism, with argument and evidence, which takes the trouble to be accurate about what Dawkins actually says, and particularly what he says in "The God Delusion" and what he has said in videos of readings, Q&A sessions and interviews. I have yet to see any which does this and makes valid criticisms.
I don't think this is one of the more attractive aspects of ET - while confessing that I have been guilty of it myself - but generally I try to back up any strong criticism with some reasons and evidence.
I would even defend Bush if he was blatantly misrepresented - there is plenty of scope for attack without sinking to that. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
