Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

@Thomas,

PS on Farmerman's assertion that Dawkins used to be a scientist but isn't anymore: In standard American usage, as documented in my dictionary, a scientist is "a person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science, especially a biological or physical science." Richard Dawkins fits this definition. Nothing in it says that you lose your membership in the scientific community when you stop publishing academic papers. If Farmerman wants to say that Dawkins isn't a scientist anymore, that is his right, but it's him speaking a made-up language of his own rather than plain English.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Well poop, I missed that background on Layman's comment.

Quote:

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

layman posted:
"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:

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.

Yeah, right, eh? They have it all quantified now-something like 4% "normal" matter; 23% "dark" matter, and 73% "dark energy." All invented to save the treasured prevailing "theory of gravity."

This "solution," which you claim is not a solution, is said to be believed by "mainstream" scientists to be the correct answer.

This "dark" stuff is said to be unobservable, in theory and by hypothesis. So much for "empirical science," eh?

It would appear that "scientists" (or should we call them metaphysicians?) have their own "invisible friends," too, eh?

Faith, anyone?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes...[it] neither emits nor absorbs light or any other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level....Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics...

According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is composed primarily of a not yet characterized type of subatomic particle...the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Not yet characterized subatomic particle, eh? We don't know what the hell it is, but we sho nuff know that it IS.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

you understood my "made up language" didnt you? The fact that Dawkins hawks for his beliefs and cyclically co-authors evolution and atheism books with guys like Yan Wong makes him an entertaining writer , not a scientist. Robert Leonard teaches his subject but Brian May ? not so much.

I sted that Dawkins WAS a practicing scientist (the key operative is "practicing"). He is now an author of several popular
r science books. Hes really not practicing any technical craft.

Did you read "ancestor's Tale" or "The Greatest Show on Earth"?.

2 Replies

@layman,

And of course that kind of creative speculation is by no means limited to dark energy and matter. But all such inventions seem to have a predetermined goal in mind, prior to creation.

Another example is multiple universes resulting from the big bang. Everything seems to have be so "finely tuned" for our universe to exist that it's existence seems highly unlikely without some (prohibited) teleological element being behind it. That aint good. What now?

I know! If we say an infinite number of universes have been tried, and that most, but not necessarily all, of them failed to get off the ground, then it's INEVITABLE that our universe would be "created by chance," eh!? Yeah, that's the ticket!

1 Reply

@layman,

If it's observed that distant galaxies are receding from us at a speed greater than that of light, that would invalidate one of our most cherished unproven hypotheses, i.e. one which generates the theory of special relativity. That aint good. Now what?

Scientist #1: I know! Check this out: We say that nothing is moving at all. It's just that "space" is "expanding," see? Yeah, that's the ticket!

Scientist #2: Wait, maybe not. That's not something we can observe--it's not empirical. Furthermore, it completely undermines out theory of motion.

Scientist #1: Yeah, so? Which one are ya gunna put your faith in? Special relativity or non-expanding space?

Scientist #2: Well, now that ya put it that way....Yeah, expanding space is the ticket!

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you understood my "made up language" didnt you? The fact that Dawkins hawks for his beliefs and cyclically co-authors evolution and atheism books with guys like Yan Wong makes him an entertaining writer , not a scientist.

That sounds like a false dichotomy to me. Why can't a person be both a scientist and an entertaining writer? And why can't a person be both a scientist and an advocate for his or her beliefs about the presence or absence of any gods in the universe? In your opinion, did Kenneth Miller stop being a leading geneticist when he published a book professing his beliefs as a Darwinist Catholic? If not, how does that differ from Dawkins professing his beliefs as a Darwinist atheist?

As for Dawkins "cyclically co-authoring evolution and atheism books", I don't understand what you mean by "cyclically". What atheism books other than The God Delusion do you think he has published?

farmerman wrote:

Did you read "ancestor's Tale" or "The Greatest Show on Earth"?.

I did. Why do you ask?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

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.

OK, so every generation and every individual has to reinvent the wheel, ignoring what has gone before. You stay that course, dood. Again, good luck with that.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I sted that Dawkins WAS a practicing scientist (the key operative is "practicing").

You may well have stated that somewhere, but the particular statement I had in mind was this one: "Dawkins used to be a pretty decent scientist. He is no more. Ever since he "self published" a lot of his stuff he gave up any membership in the club." And by the meaning that common usage and grammar give to these sentences, it is as sweeping as it is absurd: Dawkins is no longer a decent scientist because he published books of which you don't approve. Period. No qualification as to "practicing".

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Actually, I do like many of his books. His latest ones, (as I quoted) are very good at explaining evolutionary evidence to non-scientists.
Where I find him a cartoon is in his public utterances about the religious. Hes just out for a fight and will use any means he can to carry out his mission.

Im aware of your respect for him as a person, I dont share your view .

PS, "self publishing" the stuff I find rather repugnant is his "God Delusion" ,"Devil's Chaplain" and"Un-weaving the Rainbow" AND many many of his articles where he slips the tracks of reality and only goes for the jugular in a self declared war .

If hed jut keep his damn mouth in check and debate civilly. many of his ideas would gain some traction.
(LIke hes really the one who showed the world that Darwin was the one that introduced the concept of "neutral theory" not Kimura.).

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

PS, "self publishing" the stuff I find rather repugnant is his "God Delusion" ,"Devil's Chaplain" and"Un-weaving the Rainbow" AND many many of his articles where he slips the tracks of reality and only goes for the jugular in a self declared war .

You're right: we do disagree. I find all these books well-reasoned and non-belligrent. Criticizing and mocking are not not acts of war, and the worst I ever saw Dawkins do to religion was to criticize and mock it.

farmerman wrote:

If hed jut keep his damn mouth in check and debate civilly. many of his ideas would gain some traction.

Even if I agreed with the premise of your statement that Dawkins has not been debating civilly in the past, I think your conclusion is a fantasy. People will not take kindly to confrontation with the fact that they've dedicated much of their lifes to a delusion. I have yet to witness a manner of delivering the fact that will not cause offense.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I think the internet has given all of us Walter Mitty"s the arena and the courage to become the "Hammers of Logic" and self appointed slayers of fundamentalism Eh?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Im only being consistent. I recall a while back, e all were piling on a few "Creation SCientists" as "not bei ng real scientists" depsite thwir training and past experience. Such folks as Steve Austen, Michael Behe etc.
Dr Behe actually teaches microbio at Lehigh. As a director at the Discovery Institute,He merely uses his academic credentials as a "badge of authority". (Lehigh University isolated him by disclaimer (he was already tenured when he "came out"). Steve Austen uses his PhD and early experience as a petrologist dealing in isotope chemistry, in order to be a spokesman for "Creation SCience". While I find Austen's and Behes use of their academic degrees and previous experience as a valid way to underpin their worldviews, I similarly place Dawkins in the same boat.(different end).

The Daubert Rules limited Dr Behes testimony solely to the areas where he would b providing "Scientific evidence" for the occurence of an INtelligent Designer and would testify as to the scientific merit of his "expert opinion" (thi in Kitzmiller v Dover). They took his testimony apart, not from a standpoint of his opinions were "wacky" , but could he substantiate that they WERE science.
Richard DAwkins is in the same boat in that he is using some "scientific sounding arguments" about the wackiness of the existence of an Intelligent designer.
The same rules that apply to Behe, also apply to Dawkins.IT AINT SCIENCE. Thats all .

If Dawkins would limit his "shows" to that evidence he could muster that support his worldviews, and that these evidence ARE science, Thtd be totaally different. He chooses NOT to go that path. He goes for ridicule, insult, and poor logic.
Id rather not be associated with his public pronouncements and a few books hes written.
I DO THINK that there are several of his books that are Brilliant (IVE SAID THAT SEVERAL TIMES).

He makes a great argument for natural selection and evidence for opportunistic volution in "Ancestor's.Tale..." and "Greatest Show..." or"Extended Phenotype..." . He jumps the evidence track in several of the others, and these become the basis of his shows.

His "Selfish Gene..." has been a basis of a scientific argument between he and severql others, (including S J Gould), but that was a book(IMHO) that sort of decided his later pathway in life (was he going to continue research or would he become something else). I think he made a career decision that veered away from science and mbraced entertainment and popular literature.

0 Replies

The situations are not analogous. Behe, et al, are saying "I'm a scientist, and that's why you should accept the "intelligent design" hypothesis. Dawkins is not involved in any such appeal to authority. Dawkins is not saying, i'm a scientist, and therefore you should lend no more credence to theism than i do. I acknowledge that i've not read Dawkins' The God Delusion, but unless you can point to a claim on his part that he has scientific evidence that there is no god, your analogy fails. I'm not going to buy into your analogy just because you say so.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

The situations are not analogous. Behe, et al, are saying "I'm a scientist, and that's why you should accept the "intelligent design" hypothesis.

Now that just ain't true. I've read his and Meyer's stuff and never saw an instance of 'appeal to their own authority' but there was a lot of math and biology there. You might make the claim that there were errors in their application of the science but I never saw that either.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

OK, so every generation and every individual has to reinvent the wheel, ignoring what has gone before. You stay that course, dood. Again, good luck with that.

You are dangerously close to the truth there. If there is a God and you are going to know him, that is exactly the case.

Same deal here where you have read varied opinions on Dawkins and perhaps read his books. We can get an idea of his attitudes and what he believes from that but we really don't know him as a man unless we personally meet and chat over a brew or two. Same story with God.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I acknowledge that i've not read Dawkins' The God Delusion, but unless you can point to a claim on his part that he has scientific evidence that there is no god, your analogy fails.

I have read the God Delusion. I can confirm that Dawkins's line of reasoning is indeed different:

Just because you can't prove a claim beyond a reasonable doubt either way, that doesn't mean the chances of it being true are 50:50. Theoretically, we should all be agnostic about leprechauns, the tooth fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In practice, we're all aleprechaunists, atoothfairyists, and amonsterists. And this is as it should be.
Extraordinary claims require proportionally extraordinary evidence to merit belief.
The existence of a supernatural personality that creates worlds, ordains the natural laws in them, obsesses about everyone's sex life, listens to everyone's prayers, selectively forgives everyone's sins, etc --- is an extraordinary thing to claim.
The evidence for this claim is in fact quite weak. It is far weaker than it would have to be to furnish belief in a supernatural world-creator, sin-forgiver, etc.
Therefore, on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 represents absolute certainty that god exists and 7 represents absolute certainty that she doesn't, I [Dawkins] am a 6.5. My level of belief in a world-creating god is about the same as my level of belief in leprechauns, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy.

I don't remember reading anywhere that Dawkins claims to have conclusive, positive scientific evidence that god does not exist. And as an aside, I also don't see what's supposed to be cartoonish, boorish, or otherwise unbecoming about making this argument.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Dawkin's quote:
My degree of belief in a world-creating god is about the same as my degree of belief in leprechauns, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy.

Regardless of where you come down on the question of God, there does exist a world without absolute answers to its creation to which a creator God is a plausible explanation. The same cannot be said of leprechauns and the Easter bunny. It is these departures from reason and logic that make Dawkins - not a scientist - in "The God Delusion" and other similar rants.

It also makes him 'boorish'.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Regardless of where you come down on the question of God, there does exist a world without absolute answers to its creation to which a creator God is a plausible explanation.

You assume that a creator-god is an explanation at all. Dawkins rightly denies this in The God Delusion. He would say that postulating the existence of a creator-god raises the same question it purports to answer. Who created god? If you can't accept an uncreated world, why would you accept an uncreated creator-god as an explanation? And if you can accept not knowing who created god, if anyone, why can't you accept not knowing who, if anyone, created the world? Postulating a creator-god does not explain anything, it merely kicks these questions down the road.

Leadfoot wrote:

It is these departures from reason and logic that make Dawkins - not a scientist - in "The God Delusion" and other similar rants.

You have not demonstrated a departure from reason or logic.

1 Reply

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know