Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

@FBM,

*methods

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

None that science would recognize. As long as you start with your favorite conclusion and work backwards to try to cobble together something to justify it, you will be at odds with the scientific method.

Not so sure about the evidence itself but definitely not at odds with the method.

Consider the scientific evidence for 'dark matter'. We don't have any way to see it, measure it or directly detect it in any way other than to observe its effect on the trajectories of what we can see. In spite of this, Science accepts the existence of dark matter as established fact based on what we know of completely different things we can see and measure.

Except for science's a priori assumption that 'spirit' does not exist, why would it be invalid to use this same method to test for God's existence?

You don't recognize the evidence because you don't see it. You don't see it, not because you are unable to see, but because you don't look.

1 Reply

Science doesn't assume that "spirit" doesn't exist. Those who allege that there is such a thing have no scientific basis for such a claim.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Consider the scientific evidence for 'dark matter'. We don't have any way to see it, measure it or directly detect it in any way other than to observe its effect on the trajectories of what we can see. In spite of this, Science accepts the existence of dark matter as established fact based on what we know of completely different things we can see and measure.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding here. Dark energy and matter are merely the names given to whatever solution there turns out to be to the observed anomalies. They are not the solutions themselves. Putting labels on the unknown is not a declaration of knowledge.

Quote:

Except for science's a priori assumption that 'spirit' does not exist, why would it be invalid to use this same method to test for God's existence?

I was never taught that as an assumption of science. Please substantiate that claim.

Quote:

You don't recognize the evidence because you don't see it. You don't see it, not because you are unable to see, but because you don't look.

I don't see it because neither you nor anyone else has produced any. I've been looking for a long time. I find empirical data from scientists, but smoke screens, hand-waving and fallacious, obfuscational rhetoric from theists.

You're making the claim for a spirit and a god, it's on you to substantiate it. It's not up to anyone else to disprove it.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Ask Farmer about Methodological Naturalism. It assumes there is a 'natural cause' for everything and is the tacitly or explicitly accepted standard for almost all scientists. As he has correctly pointed out, it keeps people from going off on arbitrary tangents, so it's a useful guideline for knowing the material world. But it doesn't help you in searching for 'spirit'.

I was just saying that the scientific method (a different thing than Methodological Naturalism) CAN be applicable to the search for spirit.

0 Replies

@FBM,

See reply to Set.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Let me know what your results are. Or point me to the peer-reviewed journal when they're published. Until such time, you've still got nothing more than a hypothesis. Not worth restructuring one's cosmology or lifestyle over.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

I don't see it because neither you nor anyone else has produced any. I've been looking for a long time.

Scientists are supposed to do groundbreaking work, not rely on others to spoon feed them the evidence for what they want to prove. Maybe you should stop looking to others?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
I don't see it because neither you nor anyone else has produced any. I've been looking for a long time.
Scientists are supposed to do groundbreaking work, not rely on others to spoon feed them the evidence for what they want to prove. Maybe you should stop looking to others?

Science, when done well, isn't about proving something that you want to be true. That's what the humanities, including theology, are for. Wink

Science is about following the evidence wherever it leads.

I am not a scientist. You suggest that you are. I'll wait for your peer-reviewed work to come out.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Science, when done well, isn't about proving something that you want to be true.

Ha!HaHahaha... Some of the very best science is done because we want something to be true or possible and often in the face of belief that it probably couldn't. I will leave it to you to research how very off base your assertion is.

We stumble into things following evidence at times but if we left it to nothing but that, we would be far behind where we find ourselves today.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

“Men occasionally stumble over truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." (Winston Churchill)

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Getting a little emotional there, looks like. Wink

A researcher may want X to be true, but when the experiments show that ~X is true, X is abandoned. Or, put another way, when no evidence can be found to support X, it is held in suspended judgment until such evidence can be found.

It doesn't work that way in religion. The religious approach is to "know" that X is true, regardless of whether or not there's evidence for it, then cherry pick for whatever might be cobbled together in apparent support of X.

I'll await your peer-reviewed journal publication for the existence of the spirit or of your god. Best of luck.

3 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

I am not a scientist. I'll wait for your peer-reviewed work to come out.

I aint no preacher-man. That's why I always wait until Sunday, so I can be told what to think.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
Getting a little emotional there, looks like. Wink

A researcher may want X to be true, but when the experiments show that ~X is true, X is abandoned. Or, put another way, when no evidence can be found to support X, it is held in suspended judgment until such evidence can be found.

It doesn't work that way in religion. The religious approach is to "know" that X is true, regardless of whether or not there's evidence for it, then cherry pick for whatever might be cobbled together in apparent support of X.

I'll await your peer-reviewed journal publication for the existence of the spirit or of your god. Best of luck.

No kid'n, you do make me laugh! It's a good emotion.

Re: X. All true, that's what I been say'n. 'I' found the evidence. Except for some BS paranormal phenomenon research looking to debunk ghost stories, bending spoons and that sort of crap, Science ain't even looking for God. Yeah, they do stuff like do'n FMRI's on people pray'n & stuff, that makes me laugh too.

Re: Religion. What layman said.

Re: Waiting. There you go again, wait'n on somebody else...

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Re: Religion. What layman said

I done told ya, Leddy. The boy has me on ignore.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I done told ya, Leddy. The boy has me on ignore.

In the free will thread, FBM spammed brief excerpts from about 10-20 "peer-reviewed articles" (which, for him, means "the gospel"). In each case, I quoted additional contents of the very articles he was citing to show that the claim he thought he was "proving" was dubious. I also even quoted "peer-reviewed" scientific articles which directly challenged the validity of the speculations offered up in the papers FBM spammed.

Of course, he didn't see a word of it. I wasn't doing it for him. I was doing it for the benefit of those who might be misled by his posts.

But he just kept on saying, proudly: "No one has disputed the scientific evidence I've given!"

Ignorance is bliss, they say, eh?

0 Replies

@FBM,

Sorry, I forgot you had layman on ignore in my reply to your comment on religion and its flaws. Hopefully Layman will forgive me if I paraphrase his reply, it was more diplomatic than this but in essence:

**** religion, been say'n for a loooong time - Do yer own look'n and don't wait on someone else to show ya.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Hopefully Layman will forgive me if I paraphrase his reply,

Naw, I aint forgivin nuthin, Leddy. My response was designed to be directly compared to, and contrasted with, his lame-ass assertion. It was directed TO HIM, in particular. I guess I should say "directed at," since I knowwed he wouldn't be readin it, but, still....

Your paraphrase done skipped the whole point, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Your paraphrase done skipped the whole point, eh?

Which was, of course, this here:

Whereas a Christian might cite biblical passages to "prove" his point, FMB and his ilk will cite "peer-reviewed articles."

In each case the passages chosen will be done so very selectively, but will be presented as "revelations" which come from a higher authority which cannot be questioned.

Likewise, in each case, the person doing the citing probably has very little understanding of what the entire body of his chosen "authority" really says, eh?

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Tuna wrote:

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?
I've come across conflicting opinions.

Yes, Richard Dawkins is a scientist, and it's not a matter of opinion.

As a scientist, you are as good as your academic papers. A flip remark by a colleague of yours makes no difference one way or the other. And when you look at Dawkins's list of academic papers, it turns out he's published several dozens of them, including at least five in the world's two top science journals, Science and Nature. Richard Dawkins isn't just a scientist, he's a good scientist. Any 'opinion' conflicting with that is simply misinformed.

1 Reply

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know