Originally posted by Roy
View Post
Berlinski might be one. Who are the others?
Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Berlinski describes himself as a secular Jew as well as an agnostic.
There is however reason to doubt his claim. Anyone who has heard him speak (plenty of videos on YouTube) or read what he has written cannot but help notice that many of his objections to evolution are grounded in religion (which is absolutely acceptable for those who say that they are religious but more than a bit suspect coming from someone who repeatedly declares that he isn't). This makes one suspect that he may be saying that he's agnostic for no other reason than he feels that it somehow gives credibility to the Intelligent Design movement because evolution deniers can therefore claim that not all of those who object to evolution do so on religious grounds.
Then there is the issue of his having misrepresented his credentials in other ways, which tends to support the idea he is not being forthcoming in his claims about himself. He as often promoted himself as a mathematician and philosopher of science -- neither of which is true.
While he has written books about mathematics that doesn't make one a mathematician (especially considering that some of his works have been criticized for making some fundamental mathematical errors). And while he is indeed a philosopher he is not a philosopher of science.
There is however reason to doubt his claim. Anyone who has heard him speak (plenty of videos on YouTube) or read what he has written cannot but help notice that many of his objections to evolution are grounded in religion (which is absolutely acceptable for those who say that they are religious but more than a bit suspect coming from someone who repeatedly declares that he isn't). This makes one suspect that he may be saying that he's agnostic for no other reason than he feels that it somehow gives credibility to the Intelligent Design movement because evolution deniers can therefore claim that not all of those who object to evolution do so on religious grounds.
Then there is the issue of his having misrepresented his credentials in other ways, which tends to support the idea he is not being forthcoming in his claims about himself. He as often promoted himself as a mathematician and philosopher of science -- neither of which is true.
While he has written books about mathematics that doesn't make one a mathematician (especially considering that some of his works have been criticized for making some fundamental mathematical errors). And while he is indeed a philosopher he is not a philosopher of science.
Comment