(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.
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
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
