Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[1robin]

If you ask anyone that is a scientist themselves, they will applaud Richard Dawkins for being a brilliant and ruthless scientist.

And he is a good one, otherwise he wouldn't have tenure.

I have never claimed he was anything but a competent scientists (but a terrible philosopher and a worse theologian) but I do not think tenure is an accurate gauge of competence. In fact it has become synonymous with the opposite.

 

[McBell]

In fact it has become synonymous with the opposite.

To you perhaps.
However, one cannot help but wonder if it is only because those with tenure tend to disagree with your sermons?

 

[oldbadger]

I've never taken much interest in Richard Dawkins until I watched the last five minutes of an interview between him and Mehdi Hasan.

When Mehdi pointed out that Mao Tse Tung had said, 'religion is poison', and that Karl Marx had written 'Religion is the opiate of the people', Dawkins didn't respond, as if repelled from these two names. And so I saw in Dawkins a rather shallow person who cherry picks his allies as if a politician.

When Dawkins confirmed that 'sexual abuse is not as bad as a Catholic upbringing', it did look as if he is an extremist maniac who should not be listened to with regard to this subject.

Then Dawkins spoke loudly, 'I am a scientist who accepts the scientific view of the universe, not the crazed beliefs of religion'. Since many religions support harmony between God and science (as one), and because the best scientists are still in contention over their view of the birth of the universe, his point drowned for me, just as it did for the audience.

Ah yes, the audience. As Mehdi Hasan reduced this scientist so, the cameras would pan to show the audience in shocked amazement. One journalist; one extremist atheist. Five minutes. Sorted. No contest.

 

[1robin]

To you perhaps.

However, one cannot help but wonder if it is only because those with tenure tend to disagree with your sermons?

Of the one hundred or so replies you have made to me I rarely remember anything besides a sarcastic, relatively fact less, personal diatribe or emotional rant but maybe you can offer some actual input here. Why is teaching at least as far as I know the only job where at a certain point a person becomes relatively untouchable professionally, unless he burns the school down or something? With the exception of what goes on in politics and labor unions, I can't think of a system more conducive to corruption. Lack of or lessened accountability has never increased quality over time.

 

[McBell]

Of the one hundred or so replies you have made to me I rarely remember anything besides a sarcastic, relatively fact less, personal diatribe or emotional rant but maybe you can offer some actual input here. Why is teaching at least as far as I know the only job where at a certain point a person becomes relatively untouchable professionally, unless he burns the school down or something? With the exception of what goes on in politics and labor unions, I can't think of a system more conducive to corruption. Lack of or lessened accountability has never increased quality over time.

as far as you know?
I would say you do not get out very much.

Athletes
politicians
priests
lawyers


golly gee you needs get out more

 

[fantome profane]

Of the one hundred or so replies you have made to me I rarely remember anything besides a sarcastic, relatively fact less, personal diatribe or emotional rant but maybe you can offer some actual input here. Why is teaching at least as far as I know the only job where at a certain point a person becomes relatively untouchable professionally, unless he burns the school down or something? With the exception of what goes on in politics and labor unions, I can't think of a system more conducive to corruption. Lack of or lessened accountability has never increased quality over time.

The point behind tenure is to allow for free thought and expression of those ideas. A tenured professor cannot be fired because of his of her views.

 

[1robin]

as far as you know?

I would say you do not get out very much.

Whatever else you do make sure and never simply answer a question. You must work in an insult or sarcasm somewhere. That is how I know it’s you. This one is not very abrassive though.

Athletes

What tenure system do athletes have? In what sport? At what level? I watch and have played have played baseball and football, both allow for the dropping of anyone for basically any reason. Payment of contracts is another issue. The running back I saw for GB last night was selling cars a few months ago because he was cut by GB early in the season.

politicians

I mentioned politicians. They do not have a formal tenure system. They instead have in effect an unofficial retention system based on the stupidity of the American voter but no official system.

priests

I can't speak to Catholics but most protestant ministers are retained by popular vote and never given any formal tenure.

lawyers

Most lawyers are self-employed and have no tenure. I do not think there is even an official tenure system in most public law offices.

golly gee you needs get out more

That was worth typing. While none of the ones you listed above have a tenure system even remotely similar to teachers they are all accused of retaining incompetent and even criminal practitioners so you have proven my main contention. That lack of accountability always produces lower standards.

 

[1robin]

The point behind tenure is to allow for free thought and expression of those ideas. A tenured professor cannot be fired because of his of her views.

I will agree that it appears that tenure was originally designed to allow free expresion. As with a great many things it has instead resulted in more harm than good.

Tenure decisions can result in fierce political battles. In another instance in February 2010, Dr. Amy Bishop with the University of Alabama at Huntsville reportedly shot and killed colleagues after losing her appeal for tenure.
(I have included this only because I went to this university and it is where I lost respect for formal (non applied) academics.)
Since the 1970s[16] philosopher John Searle has called for major changes to tenure systems, calling the practice "without adequate justification." However, Searle also argued that tenured professors be reviewed every seven years to help eliminate "incompetent" teachers who can otherwise find refuge in the tenure system.[17]
It has also been suggested that tenure may have the effect of diminishing political and academic freedom among those seeking it - that they must appear to conform to the political or academic views of the field or the institution where they seek tenure. For example, in The Trouble with Physics, the theoretical physicist, Lee Smolin says "... it is practically career suicide for young theoretical physicists not to join the field of string theory. ...". It is certainly possible to view the tenure track as a long-term demonstration of the candidate's political and academic conformity. Patrick J. Michaels, a controversial part-time research professor at the University of Virginia, wrote: "...tenure has had the exact opposite effect as to its stated goal of diversifying free expression. Instead, it stifles free speech in the formative years of a scientist's academic career, and all but requires a track record in support of paradigms that might have outgrown their usefulness."[18]
Other criticisms include the publish or perish pressures creating trivial junk research, a caste system treating those without tenure poorly, and indolence after having achieved tenure. The tenured faculty can resist necessary reforms by administrators who they generally outlast. The tenured faculty also usually can control appointments which contributes to political correctness and groupthink.[19]
After the Ward Churchill controversy, a telephone survey of “a thousand Americans aged 18 and older” by the American Association of University Professors found that, while “generally supportive of the tenure system”, "only about 17.9 percent of respondents say the tenure system should remain as it is".[21] Another poll found that 65% believed that "non-tenured professors are more motivated to do a good job in the classroom".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_(academic)

It seems tenure has produced the very problems it was thought to stop.
1. It makes currently popular paradigms (macro-evolution, string theory, multiverses) be maditorily adopted by new teachers.
2. It makes restricts anyone from challenging the current vogues in intellectual thought.
3. It manditorily results in the retention of unqualified teachers.
4. It makes tenure (not good science for example) the most important goal.
The italics above are my words.

 

[fantome profane]

I will agree that it appears that tenure was originally designed to allow free expresion. As with a great many things it has instead resulted in more harm than good.

Tenure decisions can result in fierce political battles. In another instance in February 2010, Dr. Amy Bishop with the University of Alabama at Huntsville reportedly shot and killed colleagues after losing her appeal for tenure.
(I have included this only because I went to this university and it is where I lost respect for formal (non applied) academics.)
Since the 1970s[16] philosopher John Searle has called for major changes to tenure systems, calling the practice "without adequate justification." However, Searle also argued that tenured professors be reviewed every seven years to help eliminate "incompetent" teachers who can otherwise find refuge in the tenure system.[17]
It has also been suggested that tenure may have the effect of diminishing political and academic freedom among those seeking it - that they must appear to conform to the political or academic views of the field or the institution where they seek tenure. For example, in The Trouble with Physics, the theoretical physicist, Lee Smolin says "... it is practically career suicide for young theoretical physicists not to join the field of string theory. ...". It is certainly possible to view the tenure track as a long-term demonstration of the candidate's political and academic conformity. Patrick J. Michaels, a controversial part-time research professor at the University of Virginia, wrote: "...tenure has had the exact opposite effect as to its stated goal of diversifying free expression. Instead, it stifles free speech in the formative years of a scientist's academic career, and all but requires a track record in support of paradigms that might have outgrown their usefulness."[18]
Other criticisms include the publish or perish pressures creating trivial junk research, a caste system treating those without tenure poorly, and indolence after having achieved tenure. The tenured faculty can resist necessary reforms by administrators who they generally outlast. The tenured faculty also usually can control appointments which contributes to political correctness and groupthink.[19]
After the Ward Churchill controversy, a telephone survey of “a thousand Americans aged 18 and older” by the American Association of University Professors found that, while “generally supportive of the tenure system”, "only about 17.9 percent of respondents say the tenure system should remain as it is".[21] Another poll found that 65% believed that "non-tenured professors are more motivated to do a good job in the classroom".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_(academic)

It seems tenure has produced the very problems it was thought to stop.
1. It makes currently popular paradigms (macro-evolution, string theory, multiverses) be maditorily adopted by new teachers.
2. It makes restricts anyone from challenging the current vogues in intellectual thought.
3. It manditorily results in the retention of unqualified teachers.
4. It makes tenure (not good science for example) the most important goal.
The italics above are my words.

Why do you think we don't see more tenured professors questioning evolution (or "macro-evolution")? The point being that here is no fear of loosing their position over it, so why to virtually all of them still accept it?

 

[McBell]

Whatever else you do make sure and never simply answer a question. You must work in an insult or sarcasm somewhere. That is how I know it’s you. This one is not very abrassive though.
What tenure system do athletes have? In what sport? At what level? I watch and have played have played baseball and football, both allow for the dropping of anyone for basically any reason. Payment of contracts is another issue. The running back I saw for GB last night was selling cars a few months ago because he was cut by GB early in the season.
I mentioned politicians. They do not have a formal tenure system. They instead have in effect an unofficial retention system based on the stupidity of the American voter but no official system.
I can't speak to Catholics but most protestant ministers are retained by popular vote and never given any formal tenure.
Most lawyers are self-employed and have no tenure. I do not think there is even an official tenure system in most public law offices.
That was worth typing. While none of the ones you listed above have a tenure system even remotely similar to teachers they are all accused of retaining incompetent and even criminal practitioners so you have proven my main contention. That lack of accountability always produces lower standards.

:biglaugh:

Please be so kind as to let me know when you finish moving the goal posts.

 

[Warren Clark]

I have never claimed he was anything but a competent scientists (but a terrible philosopher and a worse theologian) but I do not think tenure is an accurate gauge of competence. In fact it has become synonymous with the opposite.

Richard Dawkins is not a theologist or a philosopher. He is a scientist. he only shows what is in his field. It is religious idiots who think science can be applied to supernatural beliefs that get emotional when he tries to tell them there is no evidence what-so-ever for a god or any other superstitious belief.
Its not his fault people would rather believe in their superstitious ways with their eyes and ears shut while screaming "LALALALALALALA".

 

[Kemble]

Might irk some atheists but I'm partial to Stephen T. Asma's assessment of the New Atheist movement.

The New Atheists' Narrow Worldview - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education

 

[Warren Clark]

I have never claimed he was anything but a competent scientists (but a terrible philosopher and a worse theologian) but I do not think tenure is an accurate gauge of competence. In fact it has become synonymous with the opposite.

Might erk some atheists but I'm partial to Stephen T. Asma's assessment of the New Atheist movement.

The New Atheists' Narrow Worldview - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education

The question didnt refer to him being atheist. It was a question of his skills as a scientist. =P

I am sick of people trying to pin different labels on people like "the new atheist movement" or "humanitarian atheists"... etc. If someone is an atheist, they do not have faith in any god... point blank.

 

[Kemble]

I am sick of people trying to pin different labels on people like "the new atheist movement" or "humanitarian atheists"... etc. If someone is an atheist, they do not have faith in any god... point blank.

Get over yourself.

 

[Warren Clark]

Get over yourself.

What an original and intelligent response. I will have to write that one down.

 

[1robin]

Richard Dawkins is not a theologist or a philosopher. He is a scientist. he only shows what is in his field. It is religious idiots who think science can be applied to supernatural beliefs that get emotional when he tries to tell them there is no evidence what-so-ever for a god or any other superstitious belief.

If he isn't then he should stay in the lab and quit philosophizing and commenting on the Bible. If I was an atheist I would suggest this anyway because his incompetance in these areas would embarrass me. There are 750,000 thousand words in the most studied book on earth that testify to the existence of God which in the words of two of the greatest legal testimony experts in human history (Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) meet every standard of legal requirement for reliable testimony. The concept exists in virtually every single culture that has ever existed. His existence is logically, philosophically, and scientifically almost necessary and certainly strongly implied. Much of reality as we know it is not scientifically provable and science is not the arbiter of all truth no matter how omniscient you claim it to be. Science can't even prove many scientific claims. I will suspend judgment for now but the use of "idiots" is not conducive to future discussions with me.

Its not his fault people would rather believe in their superstitious ways with their eyes and ears shut while screaming "LALALALALALALA".

Your opinions, besides being absolutely unknowable to you have no explanatory power or value. The issue deserves better scholarship than "LALALALA". What an argument.

 

[Warren Clark]

If he isn't then he should stay in the lab and quit philosophizing and commenting on the Bible. If I was an atheist I would suggest this anyway because his incompetance in these areas would embarrass me. There are 750,000 thousand words in the most studied book on earth that testify to the existence of God which in the words of two of the greatest legal testimony experts in human history (Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) meet every standard of legal requirement for reliable testimony. The concept exists in virtually every single culture that has ever existed. His existence is logically, philosophically, and scientifically almost necessary and certainly strongly implied. Much of reality as we know it is not scientifically provable and science is not the arbiter of all truth no matter how omniscient you claim it to be. Science can't even prove many scientific claims. I will suspend judgment for now but the use of "idiots" is not conducive to future discussions with me.

He is a man of education. He looks for the best education that can be given to those that will precede us in our work.
His issue with religion is their pressing existence that devours the minds of innocent children. So forgive him and anyone else that has a problem with people telling kids that science and hard evidence is wrong, but to instead believe that everything magically appeared thanks to some entity no one can see.
Who the hell needs science when you have the Bible? Right?
That is the type of thinking Dawkins and many other scientists are fighting.
So when he goes to tell someone that believes that an entity speaks to them that they are delusional... he has every right to say so without his profession as a scientist being questioned.

Your opinions, besides being absolutely unknowable to you have no explanatory power or value. The issue deserves better scholarship than "LALALALA". What an argument.

This last sentence seems fragmented and I am not understanding it's context. Please clearly explain your point here. Something about my opinion being unknowable??? Idk...

 

[Simurgh]

If he isn't then he should stay in the lab and quit philosophizing and commenting on the Bible. If I was an atheist I would suggest this anyway because his incompetance in these areas would embarrass me. There are 750,000 thousand words in the most studied book on earth that testify to the existence of God which in the words of two of the greatest legal testimony experts in human history (Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) meet every standard of legal requirement for reliable testimony. The concept exists in virtually every single culture that has ever existed. His existence is logically, philosophically, and scientifically almost necessary and certainly strongly implied. Much of reality as we know it is not scientifically provable and science is not the arbiter of all truth no matter how omniscient you claim it to be. Science can't even prove many scientific claims. I will suspend judgment for now but the use of "idiots" is not conducive to future discussions with me.

As a scientist he has the right to answer people who ask him questions and want him to give scientific answers about things religious. It is not an atheist’s fault when religious people want to show that their belief system is based on scientific laws. They are the ones who want to prove something that cannot be proven—as many eventually point out.

So, if you don’t want an atheist’s opinion, don’t ask.

As WC stated, Dawkins provides answers within the scope of his expertise and knowledge, he does not claim to be a philosopher. It Is furthermore not necessary to be a biblical scholar to answer questions regarding text in the bible when people want to use science to defend/explain/justify/legitimize it.

Just because there are billions of people who believe in some sort of godhead means nothing when talking about scientific proof that one or many exist. To state that god exists because x number people agree one does is a tautology that proves nothing whatsoever.

And what of it that Greenleaf and Lyndhurst (whoever he is) insist that a god exists based on some 200 year old legal opinion. It prove s nothing other than that people were less interested in finding out what is real and what is mythical than they are today. Slavery too was once justified by the bible, thankfully we grew out of that kind of nonsense thinking.

Your opinions, besides being absolutely unknowable to you have no explanatory power or value. The issue deserves better scholarship than "LALALALA". What an argument.

I think that the OP referred to the LALALALA argument as the one used by religious people who refuse to accept anything that questions their world view in any form, regardless of the science and or scholarship behind it.

 

[1robin]

He is a man of education. He looks for the best education that can be given to those that will precede us in our work.

I have no idea what this even means. It does not seem coherent. How can he or we give anything to anyone that preceded us?

His issue with religion is their pressing existence that devours the minds of innocent children. So forgive him and anyone else that has a problem with people telling kids that science and hard evidence is wrong, but to instead believe that everything magically appeared thanks to some entity no one can see.

I have no problem with his or anyone’s debating against religion. In fact debates are usually taken up at the instigation of the religious side. My problem with him is that his arguments are bad. He is not very good at debating religion yet his qualifications in an almost unrelated field give him more credibility than he should have. It is like the practice of asking Holly wood stars what their political views are. I do not care. I never dismiss a good argument or good debater but I do resent muddying the waters by a person who is out of their depth. His very competent education in biology does not translate to the fields of theology or philosophy and it shows. Your ridiculous mischaracterizations of at least Christianity made for effect and founded on bitterness have no explanatory value and only serve to make stereotypes more concrete. Your position like Hitchens should be there is no God and I hate him.

Who the hell needs science when you have the Bible? Right?

If that is what I thought that is what I would have said. I see no conflict between scientific facts that are actually known and the Bible. There exist some hypothetical inconsistencies between fantasy science and the Bible. Since those theories take more faith than the Bible requires they have no application.

That is the type of thinking Dawkins and many other scientists are fighting.

So they invent a theory that not only has no evidence but can never have any, like (multiverses, or eternal time) because they find the God implying reality of the universe that is based on observation, inconvenient, claim their faith based assumptions are true and there for the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict between science and the Bible, however there is a conflict between the scientific fantasies used to challenge the Bible and the scientific method its self. Dawkins should stick to his alter to science in the lab.

So when he goes to tell someone that believes that an entity speaks to them that they are delusional... he has every right to say so without his profession as a scientist being questioned.

He most certainly should be called out for making a pronouncement about a claim he has absolutely no access to and lies completely outside the realm of his education. I have no right to say that because I have a degree in math and experience in defense electronics that a person who claims to have seen a UFO is wrong. That is arrogant garbage. I may not agree but unlike Dawkins and apparently you I know very well I do not have any way of determining the truth of that claim.

This last sentence seems fragmented and I am not understanding it's context. Please clearly explain your point here. Something about my opinion being unknowable??? Idk...

It appeared very clear to me. You declared the truth or falsity of something which you can't possibly know. You then reduced a discussion of the most important issues in human history down to a diatribe based on a conclusion you had no way to make. You basically said that faith is the result of ignorance and a preference for ignorance and you could not possibly know that even if it was true. Some of the most intelligent people in human history (including a large percentage of the founders of the actual fields of science themselves were Christians). Linking faith to ignorance only serves to link your claim to it. To claim something that you can't know is intellectually dishonest and emotionally not logically based.

 

[1robin]

As a scientist he has the right to answer people who ask him questions and want him to give scientific answers about things religious. It is not an atheist’s fault when religious people want to show that their belief system is based on scientific laws. They are the ones who want to prove something that cannot be proven—as many eventually point out.

He has the right but it has nothing what so ever to do with his being a scientist. He has that right because he lives in a country where people like me have risked their lives to guaranty him that freedom. The freedom was said by the one who recorded the right in the decleration of independance to only exist if God does. So in effect he is exercising a right to dismiss the source of that right. I always love how anti-God philosophy eats it's self. Without God there is no sufficient basis for rights of anykind. That is why Godless regimes are many times the most likely to restrict that specific right. I never said he did not have the right. I said he stinks at it and I wish he wouldn't do it. I have almost never said or heard a religious person ever say that faith is true because of science. The only thing we claim is that when it speaks on science it is correct, and that is very rarely. It isn't the Christian who hates the fact the universe we know about is fine-tuned and so has invented a multiverse fantasy that has not one piece of evidence to allow for plausible deniability. It isn't the Christian whose theory is diametrically opposed to a law of biology (abiogenesis) which has no known exception yet insists it's true anyway. I think many times there is more faith on the science side that the theological side yet they call it science where as we are honest enough to call it faith.

So, if you don’t want an atheist’s opinion, don’t ask.

What are you talking about. Are you saying the books he has written were because someone made him do it. Come on. He does not like God and makes money by appealing to that. He uses competency in one area to justify his work in another and here we go.

As WC stated, Dawkins provides answers within the scope of his expertise and knowledge, he does not claim to be a philosopher. It Is furthermore not necessary to be a biblical scholar to answer questions regarding text in the bible when people want to use science to defend/explain/justify/legitimize it.

He does not, or does not do so exclusively. If you watch his debates he has no control over what areas are being discussed many times and speaks on philosophy, logic, and for the love theology many times and stinks at it. I think he spends more time on non-biological fields than biologic ones. Since nothing in biology that is demonstrable is an argument against the Bible it means he must venture into areas where he is way out of his depth for justification much of the time.

Just because there are billions of people who believe in some sort of godhead means nothing when talking about scientific proof that one or many exist. To state that god exists because x number people agree one does is a tautology that proves nothing whatsoever.

I never said it did. I am very well aware of the fallacy of appeal to numbers as proof. In fact I have not mentioned billions of believers at all. However I do at times as evidence for the sufficiency of the evidence for faith but never proof. An argument against points I never made or would have is also a fallacy.

And what of it that Greenleaf and Lyndhurst (whoever he is) insist that a god exists based on some 200 year old legal opinion. It prove s nothing other than that people were less interested in finding out what is real and what is mythical than they are today. Slavery too was once justified by the bible, thankfully we grew out of that kind of nonsense thinking.

I never said this either. If I had to construct the other guys position and then tear down the strawman to make any point at all I would give it up. I said (Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) are both the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in human history. Greenleaf cofounded Harvard law and wrote the literal book on evidence presentation. Lyndhurst is the only man in history to occupy every single high office of law in the British Empire. What I said is that they stated that the Gospels meet every standard of modern legal evidence requirements. I never said anything about them proving God exists. I think it clear which side is making stuff up here.

I think that the OP referred to the LALALALA argument as the one used by religious people who refuse to accept anything that questions their world view in any form, regardless of the science and or scholarship behind it.

If it can be proven that it is an accurate description of anything I will never challenge it again. As it is it is just another thing that is unknown by the people who are recording it as fact. Like much of science as well.