Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Tristesse]

Now you're getting the picture.

Thats a good way to self reinforce a delusion.

 

[Road Warrior]

Anyone who disagrees with you is a butthole, that must make me a huge anus.

Which reminds me of a joke. What does an atheist's wife do with her butthole before sex?

Spoiler: answer

She drops him off at the "Reason" rally! Bada-Boom!

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Wow. So, anyone who is narcissistic gets the hitler comparison. Thats a lot of people.

Yup. Especially when they are malignant narcissist. And that man fits the bill.

 

[Road Warrior]

Exactly, he is like an atheist version of Ann Coulter except she atleast has a set of huevos on her.

True....although I'm not quite sure if those huevos are real or Memorex.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Should he be precluded from making money from his books?

No, but it's not at all related to science, you see more of his god-debunking books than his scientific work, so it seems less important to call him a scientist, and even less factual to call him a good one.

 

[Tristesse]

Exactly, he is like an atheist version of Ann Coulter except she atleast has a set of huevos on her.

Thats true, she is a man.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If they didn't change the title, then what are you saying?

I'm saying the article in question was no more than a re-post. If The Times placed a title on the article then it would have been seen as dishonest for him or anyone working on his website to change the title. So there is no responsibility to change some one elses words/title.

I know you are desperately trying to prop up the sanctity of Dawkins

You know very little about me...

but do you or don't you hold Dawkins accountable for what he writes

What do you mean? Is he not free to write what he wants even if it is disagreeable?

and/or posts on his own website?

I feel as though if something was posted on his site endorsing violence to believers then it should be removed and the writer not allowed to post his/her articles again. So far I have not seen this to be the case.

 

[Road Warrior]

No, but it's not at all related to science, you see more of his god-debunking books than his scientific work, so it seems less important to call him a science, and even less factual to call him a good one.

That's because, and I'm really sad to say this, there isn't as much money to be made in science as there is in being a provocateur.

OTOH, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson made quite a bit of money by popularizing science. I guess they were/are better scientists than Dawkins. Unsurprising, when you think about it.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No, but it's not at all related to science, you see more of his god-debunking books than his scientific work, so it seems less important to call him a scientist, and even less factual to call him a good one.

He is a good scientist. I'll give him that one but what is truly isn't is a good educator. Educators are supposed to have a certain set of standards and ethics. He fails

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Of course not, but also let's not raise him to sainthood because he's "doing it for science".

These are your words and feelings...not mine.

Do you think Phelps, Limbaugh, Santorum, Palin and the like should be precluded from making money off their actions?

What do they have to do with Dawkins?

What "actions" are you talking about....? Opening their mouth and giving their opinions, giving it in a book...?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

OTOH, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson made quite a bit of money by popularizing science. I guess they were/are better scientists than Dawkins. Unsurprising, when you think about it.

That's because they actually want to educate people.

 

[Foxfire]

Which reminds me of a joke. What does an atheist's wife do with her butthole before sex?

Spoiler: answer

She drops him off at the "Reason" rally! Bada-Boom!

You're on fire, RW!

 

[Willamena]

That's because they actually want to educate people.

And were entertaining.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No, but it's not at all related to science, you see more of his god-debunking books than his scientific work, so it seems less important to call him a scientist

Personally I don't mash up the two when reading some his works or listening to his philosophical lectures.

 

[Road Warrior]

That's because they actually want to educate people.

And were entertaining.

Agreed, but entertaining in a positive and uniting manner. They strove to bring people together through science. Dawkins, Myers, Hitchens, Dennett and the lot seek to divide people with faux science; opinion dressed up like it's science but is really only their beliefs.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

And were entertaining.

Yes indeedy.

Most good educators know how to keep your attention without resorting to hyperbole and provocative little soundbites.

 

[Road Warrior]

Exactly. This clip showing DeGrasse Tyson and Dawkins is a classic example of the difference between the two:


NSFW or little ears due to a comment by Richard Dawkins near the end.
[youtube]-_2xGIwQfik[/youtube]
Dawkins vs. Tyson - YouTube

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Exactly. This clip showing DeGrasse Tyson and Dawkins is a classic example of the difference between the two:

[youtube]-_2xGIwQfik[/youtube]
Dawkins vs. Tyson - YouTube

I tried showing people that clip. The Dawkin Droids just didn't get it. It goes over their heads. It seems like they just don't understand that an educator is supposed to act ethically.

Maybe it's something in their programming.

 

[Road Warrior]

I tried showing people that clip. The Dawkin Droids just didn't get it. It goes over their heads. It seems like they just don't understand that an educator is supposed to act ethically.

Maybe it's something in their programming.

It's because they revere Dawkins and other leaders of the New Atheist movement. Like religious fundamentalists, they don't want to hear any contradiction of their beliefs.

I like DeGrasse Tyson and think his method is the best way to go for the reasons he was explaining. Of the two, he's the better scientist, educator and leader.

I'm just happy he'll be the one hosting the new Cosmos television show next year and not Dawkins.

 

[paarsurrey]

He's a good enough scientist.

He gets paid.

By whom?