Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

UK scientists: "Richard Dawkins’ work misrepresents science"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • UK scientists: "Richard Dawkins’ work misrepresents science"

    Paper is here:
    http://pus.sagepub.com/content/early...73501.abstract

    Key quote from the press release on it:

    "A majority who mentioned Dawkins’ work during research interviews reject his approach to public engagement and said his work misrepresents science and scientists because he conveys the wrong impression about what science can do and the norms that scientists observe in their work."

    In other words, he's borrowing the veneer of science to promote his personal opinions, and scientists are tired of how this confuses the public about the nature of science.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  • #2
    It is common for an evangelists, regardless of product, to overstate his case.
    Richard's work will be weighed by history and what nonsense there is will be discarded.
    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      Paper is here:
      http://pus.sagepub.com/content/early...73501.abstract

      Key quote from the press release on it:

      "A majority who mentioned Dawkins’ work during research interviews reject his approach to public engagement and said his work misrepresents science and scientists because he conveys the wrong impression about what science can do and the norms that scientists observe in their work."

      In other words, he's borrowing the veneer of science to promote his personal opinions, and scientists are tired of how this confuses the public about the nature of science.
      Rejecting Dawkins public approach to the relationship between religion and science should be considered a philosophical issue, and not his misrepresentation of science. The science of Dawkins is science, and his philosophical dialogue represents his views and not misrepresentation of science.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Rejecting Dawkins public approach to the relationship between religion and science should be considered a philosophical issue, and not his misrepresentation of science. The science of Dawkins is science, and his philosophical dialogue represents his views and not misrepresentation of science.
        It seems to me that Dawkins has not really been doing much science in recent years but rather has been promoting his opinions in areas that he has no training whatsoever in and using his position as a scientist to garner credibility for these opinions.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          It seems to me that Dawkins has not really been doing much science in recent years but rather has been promoting his opinions in areas that he has no training whatsoever in and using his position as a scientist to garner credibility for these opinions.
          Well, based on this, many British scientists agree with you. The researchers didn't include any questions on Dawkins - they were just asking about public understanding of science. It was that topic that caused the researchers to start offering opinions on Dawkins unbidden.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Rejecting Dawkins public approach to the relationship between religion and science should be considered a philosophical issue, and not his misrepresentation of science. The science of Dawkins is science, and his philosophical dialogue represents his views and not misrepresentation of science.
            I disagree. He is quite clear that science itself is a sufficient reason to abandon belief in God or any sense of the supernatural. And by doing so he misrepresents what science is and how it interacts with what is a major element of most if not all human life and culture.

            Jim
            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              I disagree. He is quite clear that science itself is a sufficient reason to abandon belief in God or any sense of the supernatural. And by doing so he misrepresents what science is and how it interacts with what is a major element of most if not all human life and culture.

              Jim
              But that is still a philosophical position.
              "The Lord loves a working man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it."

              Navin R. Johnson

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Wally View Post
                But that is still a philosophical position.
                And when he speaks on these issues, he should then speak according to his qualifications as a philosopher and not according to his qualifications as a scientist.

                Jim
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  And when he speaks on these issues, he should then speak according to his qualifications as a philosopher and not according to his qualifications as a scientist.

                  Jim
                  I believe it is not a matter of qualifications, but a matter of a philosophical choice of Metaphysical/philosophical Naturalism. Like believers of variable qualifications who choose of theism, deism or whatever it is not required that someone has a degree in Philosophy or other qualifications to make the choice, and defend that position. The issue of the views of who are highly qualified and the views they hold is not consistent, because some of the most qualified philosophers are inconsistently theists, agnostics, and atheists that hold similar views as Dawkins. As I read Dawkins he is consistent in his philosophical reasons for being an atheist, regardless of philosophical issues or qualifications for making the choice.

                  The challenge by many theists that the belief in atheism is unreasonable, because there is no proof God(s) do not exist cuts both ways, and theist beliefs have weakness and they are vulnerable on many philosophical grounds that cannot simply be resolved by 'I believe.' Most atheists like Dawkins do not appeal to such claims of proof, but base their beliefs on the lack of consistent objective evidence for theism, or other isms.

                  The nature of the decision is not that complicated, because it is simply a naturalist choice that the basis for comprehending the nature of our existence is through science. I do not agree with this choice, but there are definite grounds for the choice considering the problems with ancient religious world views and beliefs based on the dependence on mythology, miracles and ancient cultural beliefs.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-02-2016, 08:07 AM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It's like when someone writes an article for one of the major YEC organizations and they emphasize that he is Dr. So-and-so PhD so his opinion carries more weight. But then you notice that his degree isn't even remotely related to what he is pontificating on.

                    The same thing with Dawkins.

                    He is a zoologist so when he wants to lecture on religion his opinion should carry no more weight than anyone else with no expertise in the matter.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      It's like when someone writes an article for one of the major YEC organizations and they emphasize that he is Dr. So-and-so PhD so his opinion carries more weight. But then you notice that his degree isn't even remotely related to what he is pontificating on.

                      The same thing with Dawkins.

                      He is a zoologist so when he wants to lecture on religion his opinion should carry no more weight than anyone else with no expertise in the matter.
                      Can you describe where Dawkins claim of Metaphysical Naturalism is inconsistent with his belief in atheism. Are all philosophers with PhDs and credentials who are atheists and believe in Metaphysical Naturalism some how also unqualified?
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        And when he speaks on these issues, he should then speak according to his qualifications as a philosopher and not according to his qualifications as a scientist.

                        Jim
                        Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending his argument or his qualifications.

                        I'm just saying, that statement is by definition a philosophical opinion, whether he thinks it is or not.

                        You can use science to disprove some specific claims by specific religions, but science cannot disprove the existence of the metaphysical entirely.
                        "The Lord loves a working man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it."

                        Navin R. Johnson

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Can you describe where Dawkins claim of Metaphysical Naturalism is inconsistent with his belief in atheism. Are all philosophers with PhDs and credentials who are atheists and believe in Metaphysical Naturalism some how also unqualified?
                          And my point sails above your head

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            And my point sails above your head
                            Can you describe where Dawkins claim of Metaphysical Naturalism is inconsistent with his belief in atheism. Are all philosophers with PhDs and credentials who are atheists and believe in Metaphysical Naturalism some how also unqualified?
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Wally View Post
                              Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending his argument or his qualifications.

                              I'm just saying, that statement is by definition a philosophical opinion, whether he thinks it is or not.

                              You can use science to disprove some specific claims by specific religions, but science cannot disprove the existence of the metaphysical entirely.
                              Disagree on how you use prove here, because science does not prove things. Basically science cannot falsify miraculous and supernatural claims and events concerning the beliefs and history of religions including the existence of God(s). Methodological Naturalism is the philosophy of science that limits the investigation of science to scientific evidence of our physical existence, and the falsification of theories, hypothesis and models.

                              The philosophical beliefs of Dawkins and other atheists is that, because there is no scientific evidence for the Metaphysical claims of religions nor the existence of God(s), there is no reason to believe God(s) exist. I believe that Dawkins realizes this is a philosophical claim, but sees no viable alternative to believe in. I have seen no references by Dawkins that science proves God(s) do not exist,
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              46 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X