Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Koldo]

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

I don't comprehend what this has to do with the subject at hand. :sarcastic

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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

There really isn't that much of a difference.....
[youtube]wZhOm6N4-I0[/youtube]
Neil deGrasse Tyson at UB: God and Science - YouTube

[youtube]XTOzeO-nz2A[/youtube]
Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science and Religion - YouTube

And I agree with his stance......

 

[Willamena]

By whom?

Oxford.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sounds like a field that consists of imagined material and lacks any means of verifying propositions.

"The metaphysicist has no laboratory."

The field of study about religion, not the study of metaphysics.

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

Don't know about Tyson, but Asimov and Sagan weren't the same kind of scientist as Dawkins, coming from completely different fields. Therefore, comparing them as scientists is very much unfair.

As a side note, I have every intention of reading "It's a Demon-Haunted World" one of these days. :yes:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

No it's because most of us have seen DeGrasse's lectures and knows he's not that far from Dawkins..regardless of what your clip portrays....(case in point)....

[youtube]SJfqmZ0cuek[/youtube]
Neil Tyson destroys Muslims' false argument - YouTube

Sound similar.....?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I don't comprehend what this has to do with the subject at hand. :sarcastic

What's the title of the thread again?

 

[Koldo]

What's the title of the thread again?

What does that have to do with him as an educator?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

What does that have to do with him as an educator?

I asked you a question. What's the title of the thread?

 

[Koldo]

I asked you a question. What's the title of the thread?

"Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?" :sarcastic

 

[CynthiaCypher]

"Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?" :sarcastic

And what is the primary purpose of a scientist in Dawkins' field of inquiry?

 

[Caladan]

Lets see if we can redeem the OP:

One of our friends here gave an opinion that Richard Dawkins is not a scientist.

What is your opinion? Please

Richard Dawkins is a scientist. And a good scientist at that. Books such as the Selfish Gene have gained tremendous praise.
I'd like to ask anyone here who thinks he answered the OP, and commented about Dawkins abilities as a scientist. Have you read his scientific literature?

 

[Koldo]

And what is the primary purpose of a scientist in Dawkins' field of inquiry?

To research the evolutionary processes that have given rise to the diversity of life on Earth.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

To research the evolutionary processes that have given rise to the diversity of life on Earth.

For what purpose?

 

[jarofthoughts]

For what purpose?

So that we can know more about them, which is the purpose of all science.

 

[Road Warrior]

Don't know about Tyson, but Asimov and Sagan weren't the same kind of scientist as Dawkins, coming from completely different fields. Therefore, comparing them as scientists is very much unfair.

Since all scientists use (or should use) the Scientific Method, comparing them as scientists is completely valid. No one is saying a biologist is better or worse than an astronomer. The comments were focused on Dawkins' propensity to flash his credentials as a scientist and then leap into completely unscientific beliefs about his ideas regarding God, gods, religious beliefs, etc.

 

[Koldo]

For what purpose?

Other than to try to understand how it works?

That's up for each individual to decide.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So that we can know more about them, which is the purpose of all science.

So to educate. Right?

 

[jarofthoughts]

So to educate. Right?

That's what we have teachers for.
Although some scientists are excellent teachers as well, it is not a requirement for the job.

 

[Road Warrior]

So Dawkins is primarily a teacher, but looking at the DeGrasse video, not a very good one.

Whew! I'm glad we got that one settled!