Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Scientists a little "embarrassed" By Dawkins?
-
27-12-2012 5:18pm#1Saw this in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism
Basically Peter Higgs seems to think Dawkins can be a bit of a fundie.
I remain undecided on the matter.0
Comments
-
He says fundamentalism is a problem but then gives out because Dawkins "[does] too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists" That seems fair enough so. Who should he concentrate his attack on? The people who have a fuzzy belief about a personal god that they feel no need to impose on others?0
-
Misleading thread title is misleading.0
-
Having only read this article (and it probably doesn't give a very comprehensive summary of his views), Higgs strikes me as a bit naive, and insulated from the kind of front-line confrontations that Dawkins engages in. I doubt if Higgs is too familiar or engaged with the issues and campaigns that Dawkins concerns himself with daily. It's easy to say that he should focus on fundamentalists and leave the good guys alone, but sometimes issues are broader than that and it may require a more comprehensive approach. It may even require targeting of the more 'gentle' theists as enablers, or as giving intellectual cover to the fundamentalists. Dawkins concedes that PR may not be his forte, and that there may be more optimal ways of approaching these topics, but there is no handbook that says what is the "right" way to relegate religion from its current position in the world, so he's winging it a bit.
Similar to this, there are academics and scientists that can get caught out on topics related to the paranormal and the like, because they don't have to regularly engage with the topics. Whereas skeptical campaigners and activists might be regularly clashing with believers, would have to become familiar with the arguments and rebuttals, would have examples to hand, would be able to point out and name the logical fallacies being employed, etc. They're almost distinct disciplines.0 -
I know nothing about Higgs apart from what I have seen in the popular press in the last few months. However, if this article is an accurate representation of his views, then he comes across as a little dim. I hope that it is not an accurate representation.
The old nugget "Dawkins is just a much a fundie as the religious fundies" is really a bit tiresome and lazyminded. If he can't distinguish between justifiably uncompromising arguments and fundamentalism, I will have little respect for his views.
There are many aspects of modern science that could be labelled as embarassing - one that springs to mind is the tendency of certain types of theoretical physicists to assign grandiose labels to their research topics - "theory of everything", "the god particle" are two that spring to mind. However, scientists have no reason to be ashamed of Dawkins on account of his condemnation of religious belief.0 -
To be fair to the man he is 83, and the research he is known for was done back in the early 1960's.equivariant wrote: »if this article is an accurate representation of his views, then he comes across as a little dim.
I have met many people with similar opinions on theism/deism. They cannot believe or agree with the scriptures of any organised religion, yet they are also reluctant to rule out any hope that there might be "somewhere" out there in space, for them to go to after they pop their clogs.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bravo Peter Higgs! It's good to see a leading scientist and likely Nobel prize winner speak his mind and give some balance to the debate. There should be no science versus religion war, they are mutually exclusive subjects. Science has to do with the study of the physical world we observe, its frame of reference is experiment leading to data which leads to theory. There are many subjects where science does not generally concern itself, philosophy, art, law, etc.
Religion has a philosophical frame of reference, it stems from a belief that there is a higher power / creator and represents man's attempt to experience and connect with that power. Nobody who has such a belief for whatever reason has to justify it to anyone else, it is not a scientific issue. Attempts by Dawkins and others to link the two are illogical and frankly embarrassing to many scientists, even many of those that share Dawkin's atheism.
While the majority of scientists are agnostic, there are many theist and deist scientists. Higgs is not one of them apparently, but he quite rightly exposes the illogical position of Dawkins. Science cannot comprehend religion or spirituality, the fact that Dawkins spends all his time lecturing on religion, a subject he knows very little about, simply means he has nothing to contribute to science. It is very debatable if he ever contributed anything meaningful to science, other than in the broad sense his admittedly good popular science writing.
As for Peter Higgs himself, his accomplishments in science speak for themself. As for political and religious views, his refusal to travel to Israel (to accept an award) in protest against the treatment of Palestinians also speaks for itself and puts him in sharp contrast with "new atheist" hypocrites such as Hitchens and Harris who (respectively) were/are pro- Iraq war and pro-Israel. I know which side of that moral fence question I sit on, and frankly I would be embarrassed to be associated with the likes of Hitchens and Harris if only for their stance on these humanitarian issues.
How someone can claim to be a humanitarian and can also support the Iraq war and the treatment of Palestinains by Israel escapes me.0 -
Normally I would not bite, but this post is so full of BS and plain lies that I can't help myself.Bravo Peter Higgs! It's good to see a leading scientist and likely Nobel prize winner speak his mind and give some balance to the debate. There should be no science versus religion war, they are mutually exclusive subjects. Science has to do with the study of the physical world we observe, its frame of reference is experiment leading to data which leads to theory. There are many subjects where science does not generally concern itself, philosophy, art, law, etc.
So science does not concern itself with philosophy or law? What rubbish. Science is a natural part of any discipline that is concerned with observable phenomena in the universe - both philosophy and law fall into that category. The problem with most religions is that they won't accept this. Most religions make falsifiable (and generally false) claims about the observable universe, so it is not scientists who are overstepping the mark, it is religion.Religion has a philosophical frame of reference, it stems from a belief that there is a higher power / creator and represents man's attempt to experience and connect with that power. Nobody who has such a belief for whatever reason has to justify it to anyone else, it is not a scientific issue.
Actually it stems from the desire of many people to control others through fear mongering and exploitation of homo sapiens over developed sense of agency. But I agree that justification for such nonsensical beliefs is not required, IF AND ONLY IF, your religion does not try to pollute other peoples minds with its nonsensical claims about scientific matters, and does not try to exert political power and influence society in a negative way. Unfortunately, for you and other religious apologists that is almost never the case.
Attempts by Dawkins and others to link the two are illogical and frankly embarrassing to many scientists, even many of those that share Dawkin's atheism.
Once again, it is not Dawkins or Hitchens (why bring Hitchens into this discussion? He must have really got up your nose) who makes religious apologists make blatantly false claims about the universeWhile the majority of scientists are agnostic, there are many theist and deist scientists. Higgs is not one of them apparently, but he quite rightly exposes the illogical position of Dawkins. Science cannot comprehend religion or spirituality, the fact that Dawkins spends all his time lecturing on religion, a subject he knows very little about, simply means he has nothing to contribute to science. It is very debatable if he ever contributed anything meaningful to science, other than in the broad sense his admittedly good popular science writing.
Your last assertion about Dawkins contribution to science is laughable. He is quite clearly an accomplished evolutionary biologist.As for Peter Higgs himself, his accomplishments in science speak for themself. As for political and religious views, his refusal to travel to Israel (to accept an award) in protest against the treatment of Palestinians also speaks for itself and puts him in sharp contrast with "new atheist" hypocrites such as Hitchens and Haris who (respectively) were/are pro- Iraq war and pro-Israel. I know which side of that moral fence question I sit on, and frankly I would be embarrassed to be associated with the likes of Hitchens and Harris if only for their stance on these humanitarian issues.
How someone can claim to be a humanitarian and can also support the Iraq war and the treatment of Palestinains by Israel escapes me.
Quite the little derail there - thread about Higgs views on Dawkins morphs into discussion of Hitchens views on the Iraq war0 -
He says fundamentalism is a problem but then gives out because Dawkins "[does] too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists" That seems fair enough so. Who should he concentrate his attack on? The people who have a fuzzy belief about a personal god that they feel no need to impose on others?
He didn't say fundamentalism is a problem he said "fundamentalism is another problem" - I don't know how to interpret the quote "What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists" as saying anything but that Dawkins is engaging in a fallacy by attacking religion with the argumentum-ad-fundamentalist Higgs says he often makes since "there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists". The whole point is that Dawkins is justifying his attacks on "The people who have a fuzzy belief about a personal god that they feel no need to impose on others" by resorting to both highlighting what fundamentalists do & "the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief", but that he is unhappy with Dawkins approach to dealing with believers (since he apparently so often ignores those "believers who are just not fundamentalists") and said he agreed with those who found Dawkins' approach "embarrassing".It's easy to say that he should focus on fundamentalists and leave the good guys alone, but sometimes issues are broader than that and it may require a more comprehensive approach.
If that's what you took away from the article then you must really have been looking for any excuse to justify this latest means of attacking the out-group:It may even require targeting of the more 'gentle' theists as enablers, or as giving intellectual cover to the fundamentalists.
The last thing Higgs was saying was that "he should focus on fundamentalists and leave the good guys alone", he was attacking Dawkins for all too often fallaciously tarnishing the name of the "good guys" with justifications that focus on the fundamentalists but say nothing about this caste enabler class you're so happy to attack...equivariant wrote: »The old nugget "Dawkins is just a much a fundie as the religious fundies" is really a bit tiresome and lazyminded. If he can't distinguish between justifiably uncompromising arguments and fundamentalism, I will have little respect for his views.
He offered an argument not just a tiresome and lazyminded nugget. I think it's fantastic that you'd use so weak a justification as a means to tell someone that you'll have little respect for their views (this mindset certainly isn't a common nugget you'll find on online atheist forums) but the fact is that he's highlighted an apparent fallacy in Dawkins arguments. Whether there's any substance to that or not though is just completely ignored (as if everyone just accepts the obvious premise that he's flawed, despite the fact every response misses the point) in favour of people attacking him for his age, his apparent lack of experience in the bullet-ridden trenches that are arguments about religion & his dimness, I mean my god...equivariant wrote: »Quite the little derail there - thread about Higgs views on Dawkins morphs into discussion of Hitchens views on the Iraq war
I'd say every response has derailed the thread by completely ignoring the point Higgs was making, but the quote you responded to with this focused on Higgs in the same way that people attacking Higgs for his age & dimness were doing so & was responding to that original sidetracking so attacking someone for merely following up on what has already been said is really something else...0 -
Bravo Peter Higgs! It's good to see a leading scientist and likely Nobel prize winner speak his mind and give some balance to the debate. There should be no science versus religion war, they are mutually exclusive subjects. Science has to do with the study of the physical world we observe, its frame of reference is experiment leading to data which leads to theory. There are many subjects where science does not generally concern itself, philosophy, art, law, etc.
Religion has a philosophical frame of reference, it stems from a belief that there is a higher power / creator and represents man's attempt to experience and connect with that power. Nobody who has such a belief for whatever reason has to justify it to anyone else, it is not a scientific issue. Attempts by Dawkins and others to link the two are illogical and frankly embarrassing to many scientists, even many of those that share Dawkin's atheism.
While the majority of scientists are agnostic, there are many theist and deist scientists. Higgs is not one of them apparently, but he quite rightly exposes the illogical position of Dawkins. Science cannot comprehend religion or spirituality, the fact that Dawkins spends all his time lecturing on religion, a subject he knows very little about, simply means he has nothing to contribute to science. It is very debatable if he ever contributed anything meaningful to science, other than in the broad sense his admittedly good popular science writing.
As for Peter Higgs himself, his accomplishments in science speak for themself. As for political and religious views, his refusal to travel to Israel (to accept an award) in protest against the treatment of Palestinians also speaks for itself and puts him in sharp contrast with "new atheist" hypocrites such as Hitchens and Harris who (respectively) were/are pro- Iraq war and pro-Israel. I know which side of that moral fence question I sit on, and frankly I would be embarrassed to be associated with the likes of Hitchens and Harris if only for their stance on these humanitarian issues.
How someone can claim to be a humanitarian and can also support the Iraq war and the treatment of Palestinains by Israel escapes me.
BrownBomber, is that you?0 -
equivariant wrote: »I know nothing about Higgs apart from what I have seen in the popular press in the last few months. However, if this article is an accurate representation of his views, then he comes across as a little dim. I hope that it is not an accurate representation.
So a world class physicist is extremely dim?
Come on, you can't really believe that.0 -
Advertisement
-
philologos wrote: »So a world class physicist is extremely dim?
Come on, you can't really believe that.
Oh I'm sorry, I must need new glasses. Could have sworn the post I read said a "little dim", not "extremely". Stop trying to twist facts to drag this thread down.0 -
Oh I'm sorry, I must need new glasses. Could have sworn the post I read said a "little dim", not "extremely". Stop trying to twist facts to drag this thread down.
Even people on this thread calling a world class physicist a "little dim" is absolutely absurd.
God forbid that not all scientists dishonestly apply atheist assumptions to science.0 -
Not at all.philologos wrote: »Even people on this thread calling a world class physicist a "little dim" is absolutely absurd.
Higgs is clearly pretty smart when it comes to physics. From a quick read of the article, it seems he's pretty uninformed though when it comes to both Dawkins and religion and that's fine -- not everybody has the time or the inclination to become well-informed about some topic before sounding off on it.
I'd put his attitude down as naive rather than "a little dim".0 -
Not at all.
Higgs is clearly pretty smart when it comes to physics. From a quick read of the article, it seems he's pretty uninformed though when it comes to both Dawkins and religion and that's fine -- not everybody has the time or the inclination to become well-informed about some topic before sounding off on it.
It seems that he's only uninformed because he doesn't agree with you or Richard Dawkins.0 -
No, he's uninformed because -- as Dave! pointed out above last night -- he seems to be unaware of the issues that Dawkins is addressing and instead, just confines himself to a very superficial headline commentary and not saying what he's referring to.philologos wrote: »It seems that he's only uninformed because he doesn't agree with you or Richard Dawkins.
That's dreadfully naive in the context of a commentary on religion, since the religious are well-known for playing the man instead of the issues.0 -
No, he's uninformed because -- as Dave! pointed out above last night -- he seems to be unaware of the issues that Dawkins is addressing and instead, just confines himself to a very superficial headline commentary and not saying what he's referring to.
That's dreadfully naive in the context of a commentary on religion, since the religious are well-known for playing the man instead of the issues.
I think atheists are about as guilty to be honest.
I think what Higgs has said could be rather useful to those who believe that atheism and science are somehow synonymous. It's about time that we had more of this to be honest and I think it's praiseworthy that he's said something about it.
Before using your broad brush against "the religious" (whatever that means) you should probably look deeply into your own camp and question your own assumptions.
The acknowledgement that many of those who work in his field are believers also goes to weaken this claim that atheism and science as synonymous:In the El Mundo interview, Higgs argued that although he was not a believer, he thought science and religion were not incompatible. "The growth of our understanding of the world through science weakens some of the motivation which makes people believers. But that's not the same thing as saying they're incompatible. It's just that I think some of the traditional reasons for belief, going back thousands of years, are rather undermined.
"But that doesn't end the whole thing. Anybody who is a convinced but not a dogmatic believer can continue to hold his belief. It means I think you have to be rather more careful about the whole debate between science and religion than some people have been in the past."
He said a lot of scientists in his field were religious believers. "I don't happen to be one myself, but maybe that's just more a matter of my family background than that there's any fundamental difficulty about reconciling the two."
I can understand how people like you who do believe that science and religion are incompatible might be miffed when a world class physicist undermines one of the assumptions that you cling to in the hope that it might give new-atheism a cogent argument.0 -
Uh, science and religion are incompatible? Where have I said that?philologos wrote: »I can understand how people like you who do believe that science and religion are incompatible might be miffed when a world class physicist undermines one of the assumptions that you cling to in the hope that it might give new-atheism a cogent argument.
I've already pointed out above that Higgs is clearly a very smart physicist, but he's dreadfully naive when it comes to religious arguments which are outside his current competence.
That's exactly analogous to somebody who's a great scientist who's also a religious believer -- competence in one field does not imply competence in another, particularly something like religion which has been carefully designed by evolution to fool people by specious arguments and religious texts that are clearly fabrications.0 -
Higgs, and any other scientists who might be a bit "embarrassed" by Dawkins obviously doesn't really care too much about what people believe. Religion is just not a subject that bothers them as much as it does Dawkins, who is very vocal about why the subject is so important to him.
Higgs and co. probably belong to a more conservative group of scientists who believe press conferences and media are something to be endured only in order to secure another round of funding.
Sure, loads of people (religious and otherwise) find Dawkins a bit mouthy and wish he'd stop banging on. But none of this challenges the substance of anything he bangs on about, so this whole article is a bit moot.0 -
Not at all.
Higgs is clearly pretty smart when it comes to physics. From a quick read of the article, it seems he's pretty uninformed though when it comes to both Dawkins and religion and that's fine -- not everybody has the time or the inclination to become well-informed about some topic before sounding off on it.
I'd put his attitude down as naive rather than "a little dim".
The crux of this is "quick read", what else but ignorance justifies labelling those who disagree with us as "a little dim" (oh, actually a lot as this thread shows us).No, he's uninformed because -- as Dave! pointed out above last night -- he seems to be unaware of the issues that Dawkins is addressing and instead, just confines himself to a very superficial headline commentary and not saying what he's referring to.
That's dreadfully naive in the context of a commentary on religion, since the religious are well-known for playing the man instead of the issues.
I love how you justify yourself by referencing a post I've shown to just completely misinterpret what Higgs was saying, but still - what you've said has literally nothing to do with anything tbh - this "superficial headline commentary" argument has nothing to do with Higgs' actual words. I know people in this thread are having a field day indulging their fantasies with what they'd like him to have said but in the spirit of that club used to constantly beat the out-group known as rationality why not finally employ it and look at this pretty dim senile person's actual words (let alone justify how all the nonsense said has anything to do with them).I've already pointed out above that Higgs is clearly a very smart physicist, but he's dreadfully naive when it comes to religious arguments which are outside his current competence.
That's exactly analogous to somebody who's a great scientist who's also a religious believer -- competence in one field does not imply competence in another, particularly something like religion which has been carefully designed by evolution to fool people by specious arguments and religious texts that are clearly fabrications.
Oh god, really? Arguments from authority? This is just so ridiculous in light of the fact you completely ignore everything Higgs actually said & are happy to state such deep, far-reaching conclusions about an entire person based on a "quick read".
I thought my first post was enough to cover all of this tbh0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »The whole point is that Dawkins is justifying his attacks on "The people who have a fuzzy belief about a personal god that they feel no need to impose on others" by resorting to both highlighting what fundamentalists do & "the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief", but that he is unhappy with Dawkins approach to dealing with believers (since he apparently so often ignores those "believers who are just not fundamentalists") and said he agreed with those who found Dawkins' approach "embarrassing".
That doesn't contradict what people are saying on this thread in relation to Dawkins or Higgs being wrong, so I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make.0 -
Advertisement
-
sponsoredwalk wrote: »
He offered an argument not just a tiresome and lazyminded nugget.
No he didn't - at least not in the guardian report of his interview. He is quoted as saying
" I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind"
without any justification for that accusation - accusing Dawkins of focusing too much on the fundies is not a justificatin for labelling Dawkins a fundie. So unless there is some details omitted from the Guardian report, I stand by my assessment that it is just lazy minded parroting of a common misapprehension about Dawkins
I'd say every response has derailed the thread by completely ignoring the point Higgs was making, but the quote you responded to with this focused on Higgs in the same way that people attacking Higgs for his age & dimness were doing so & was responding to that original sidetracking so attacking someone for merely following up on what has already been said is really something else...
This doesn't make any sense as far as I can see. Nagirrac was not following up on anything that had previously been said in this discussion. He was derailing by bringing Hitchens political views into a discussion where they are of no relevance.0 -
equivariant wrote: »Nagirrac was not following up on anything that had previously been said in this discussion. He was derailing by bringing Hitchens political views into a discussion where they are of no relevance.
My comment on Hitchens is highly relevant to the discussion. What we had seen prior in the thread by and large were attacks on Higgs, that he was "old" and "dim", rather typical of the new atheists viewpoint where anyone who disagrees with them is not "bright". An absolutely illogoical position given the range of beliefs within the scientific community and the accomplishments of leading scientists who are theists or deists. The point is that individual religious or spiritual belief should have nothing to do with science, that is the point Higgs is making.
Higgs is a giant in science compared to a relative lightweight like Dawkins, don't confuse media fame with scientific accomplishment. Dawkins contribution to science is mainly in popularising his field of science, his worthwhile books (Selfish Gene and Extended Phenotype - written in the early 80s for you ageists out there) largely collate the work of other scientists and eloquently present it as pop science. I have no idea why many people see him as some type of authority figure outside the field of evolutionary Biology, and this from people who criticise those appealing to authority.
Dawkins is a hypocrite and illogical by defining religion as evil and responsible for most of the evil in the world. He has consistently been exposed on this point in debate where the true evils of Marxist-Atheist ideology have been exposed. Some of the examples given in the beginning of "The God Delusion" outline how illogical he is in his passsion to link religion with evil where he used Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine as examples of religious wars. These are not religious conflicts, they were/are ethnic conflicts as anyone with the sligtest knowledge of history would be aware of.
Most scientists although passionate about their field of study are also humble about their overall knowledge of the universe and our place in it. The opposite of shrills like Dawkins and Hitchens who promote ignorance and extremist views in areas beyond their field of knowledge, just as much as fundamentalist religious do and just as blindingly arrogant.0 -
My comment on Hitchens is highly relevant to the discussion. What we had seen prior in the thread by and large were attacks on Higgs, that he was "old" and "dim", rather typical of the new atheists viewpoint where anyone who disagrees with them is not "bright". An absolutely illogoical position given the range of beliefs within the scientific community and the accomplishments of leading scientists who are theists or deists. The point is that individual religious or spiritual belief should have nothing to do with science, that is the point Higgs is making.
Higgs is a giant in science compared to a relative lightweight like Dawkins, don't confuse media fame with scientific accomplishment. Dawkins contribution to science is mainly in popularising his field of science, his worthwhile books (Selfish Gene and Extended Phenotype - written in the early 80s for you ageists out there) largely collate the work of other scientists and eloquently present it as pop science. I have no idea why many people see him as some type of authority figure outside the field of evolutionary Biology, and this from people who criticise those appealing to authority.
Dawkins is a hypocrite and illogical by defining religion as evil and responsible for most of the evil in the world. He has consistently been exposed on this point in debate where the true evils of Marxist-Atheist ideology have been exposed. Some of the examples given in the beginning of "The God Delusion" outline how illogical he is in his passsion to link religion with evil where he used Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine as examples of religious wars. These are not religious conflicts, they were/are ethnic conflicts as anyone with the sligtest knowledge of history would be aware of.
Most scientists although passionate about their field of study are also humble about their overall knowledge of the universe and our place in it. The opposite of shrills like Dawkins and Hitchens who promote ignorance and extremist views in areas beyond their field of knowledge, just as much as fundamentalist religious do and just as blindingly arrogant.
I am curious, since you seem to be so readily able to assess the merits of individual scientists, what exactly apart from his prediction of his eponymous particle has Higgs achieved in physics? Just to be clear, I have no doubt that Higgs is an outstanding scientist. What I doubt is that you have any clue what you are talking about. Can you explain in even the briefest terms any contributions that Higgs has made to physics apart from his work on the Higgs field? Again, I am not trying to cast doubt on his abilities as a physicist. I am most definitely doubtful of your ability to distinguish exactly who is and who is not a "giant of science".0 -
Simple, if that person doesn't have opinions that can be twisted to suit his bizzare psuedo-scientific view, then nagirrac decries them as frauds etc. Any one else is a genius, hence why good scientists like Higgs are held up wtih intellectual giants like Rupert Sheldrake. (AKA the guy who believes in psychic dogs.)equivariant wrote: »I am most definitely doubtful of your ability to distinguish exactly who is and who is not a "giant of science".0 -
equivariant wrote: »I am curious, since you seem to be so readily able to assess the merits of individual scientists, what exactly apart from his prediction of his eponymous particle has Higgs achieved in physics? Just to be clear, I have no doubt that Higgs is an outstanding scientist. What I doubt is that you have any clue what you are talking about. Can you explain in even the briefest terms any contributions that Higgs has made to physics apart from his work on the Higgs field? Again, I am not trying to cast doubt on his abilities as a physicist. I am most definitely doubtful of your ability to distinguish exactly who is and who is not a "giant of science".
I said Higgs is a relative giant compared to Dawkins, so get the context right at least. A leading scientist is one who moves science along, who innovates and proposes a hypothesis or theory to solve a gap in science. "Apart from his enonymous particle"??? The Standard Model is arguably the most important theory in all of science. The Higgs mechanism fills a huge gap in potentially explaining how most sub atomic particles have mass and others (photons, gluons) do not. It is the key to understanding how the universe developed its material structure. Sort of important. The fact that Higgs made his proposal almost 50 years before it could be experimentally validated adds to his stature in my opinion.
I am not saying Dawkins was not a good EB scientist, however could you point me to any of his discoveries? The genotype-phenotype concept was first outlined in 1911 and hardly discovered by Dawkins. He has however done an excellent job educating the general public on evolutionary Biology.
Both Dawkins and Higgs are atheists by the way so not sure how relevant the discussion is in terms of who contributed more to science. I just find Higgs a more reasonable human being and find description of Higgs as "old" and "dim" highly offensive (offense which I am sure Dawkins would share).0 -
Simple, if that person doesn't have opinions that can be twisted to suit his bizzare psuedo-scientific view, then nagirrac decries them as frauds etc. Any one else is a genius, hence why good scientists like Higgs are held up wtih intellectual giants like Rupert Sheldrake. (AKA the guy who believes in psychic dogs.)
As usual you have nothing to offer in any discussion except to attack posters who you disagree with, and in reality the exact type of arrogant comment one gets from the most extreme Dawkins fan club.
Where did I describe any scientist as a fraud? As an open minded scientist I do not judge the work of scientists like Sheldrake and Dean Radin as pseudo-science. It is arrogance of an extreme nature to ridicule scientists who try and provide (through rigorous adherence to the scientific method) answers to questions we are currently clueless on. The fact that your mind is closed is not my problem.
Awaiting any meaningful contribution to the discussion, but doubt we will see it.0 -
Richard just sounds better to me, what he says and the way he says it.0
-
As usual you have nothing to offer in any discussion except to attack posters who you disagree with
....arrogant comment one gets from the most extreme Dawkins fan club.
It is arrogance of an extreme nature to ridicule....
The fact that your mind is closed is not my problem.
...
Awaiting any meaningful contribution to the discussion, but doubt we will see it.
Lol hypocrisy.0 -
I said Higgs is a relative giant compared to Dawkins, so get the context right at least. A leading scientist is one who moves science along, who innovates and proposes a hypothesis or theory to solve a gap in science. "Apart from his enonymous particle"??? The Standard Model is arguably the most important theory in all of science.
The Standard Model seems to be the work of many physicists, not just Higgs. Also it is fairly clear I think that you do not know enough to make assessments like "the standard model is the most important theory in all of science". The fact that you would even make such a statement is evidence of your ignorance.
The point of my question was not to question Higgs contribution - it was to question your knowledge of science. Your reply confirms my original impression that basically you haven't got a clue.The Higgs mechanism fills a huge gap in potentially explaining how most sub atomic particles have mass and others (photons, gluons) do not. It is the key to understanding how the universe developed its material structure. Sort of important. The fact that Higgs made his proposal almost 50 years before it could be experimentally validated adds to his stature in my opinion.
You make a statement comparing Higgs scientific achievements to Dawkins. If you are going to do that you have two options. Either
1. you are able to demonstrate an in depth knowledge of both men's scientific work - not just what you can find on wikipedia after a quick google
or
2. you can quote some respectable independent source who for whatever reason has done a thorough comparison (god only knows why anyone would bother doing such a thing, but you never know).
You are clearly not able to do either of these things , so the only conclusion to draw is that your original statement was just bluster and BS.
calling him a "scientific lightweight" comes pretty close imo.I am not saying Dawkins was not a good EB scientist,however could you point me to any of his discoveries? The genotype-phenotype concept was first outlined in 1911 and hardly discovered by Dawkins. He has however done an excellent job educating the general public on evolutionary Biology.
I am not the one who made the comparison (between Higgs and Dawkins), so the burden of research is not on me.Both Dawkins and Higgs are atheists by the way so not sure how relevant the discussion is in terms of who contributed more to science. I just find Higgs a more reasonable human being and find description of Higgs as "old" and "dim" highly offensive (offense which I am sure Dawkins would share).
you started it, with your 'Dawkins is a lightweight vs Higgs' and your fallacious arguments from authority. I would prefer to judge Dawkins views on religion based on his own published writings on religion, rather than on the views of the physicist du jour, who was probably being egged on by some journalist looking for a good story (I guess here, but I think that its a reasonable guess)0 -
Advertisement
-
equivariant wrote: »The Standard Model seems to be the work of many physicists, not just Higgs. Also it is fairly clear I think that you do not know enough to make assessments like "the standard model is the most important theory in all of science". The fact that you would even make such a statement is evidence of your ignorance.
Your arguments might have some merit if you did not continue to misquote me. Where did I say the Standard Model was the work of Higgs alone? He made a very significant contribution to the Standard Model.
I said "the Standard Model is arguably the most important theory in all of science. In my opinion a theory that describes what the physical universe is composed of is the most important theory in all of science, but that is just my opinion.
As for ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge, my undergraduate and graduate degrees and 30 years of work in a research scientific field would say otherwise.. but continue to attack the poster, it seems those who attack the poster on A&A are given a pass as long as they espouse the standard A&A opinions.
Richard Dawkins is a scientific lightweight compared to Peter Higgs. There is nothing whatsoever that Dawkins has published that made significant scientific progress in his field of study. Yes, he has done an excellent job popularising evolutionary Biology but there is a difference between a pop science writer and a likely Nobel prize winner. Higgs is a likely Nobel prize winner because of his "Higgs Mechanism" discovery, Dawkins is not because there is no such discovery or anything like it in his resume.
If you are looking for an analytical comparison between scientists then the h-index is useful. It ranks the productivity and impact of the published work of scientists, based on the number of papers they have published and how many times they have been cited in other publications. As the below paper by J.E. Hirsch who developed the metric explains (source: National Academy of Sciences (USA), biologists typically score higher than physicists.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569.full
Dawkins (from the ISI Web of Knowledge) scored 17. This is extremely low for a biologist. Dawkins simply did not do much original work, and his work has not been cited much. Leading scientists would be in the 60+ range with the top 10 scores in biological sciences ranging from 120 to 191.
I realize atheists love Dawkins, but he truly is not a leading scientist and no amount of jumping up and down and howling at the moon will change that.0 -
-
And Dirac has a score of 19. Another light weight I'm sure.Dawkins (from the ISI Web of Knowledge) scored 17. This is extremely low for a biologist. Dawkins simply did not do much original work, and his work has not been cited much. Leading scientists would be in the 60+ range with the top 10 scores in biological sciences ranging from 120 to 191.
What's Higg's score? You seem to have left that out suspiciously....
Edit: lol. one estimate I found has Peter Higgs' h-value at 10....0 -
And Dirac has a score of 19. Another light weight I'm sure.
What's Higg's score? You seem to have left that out suspiciously....
Edit: lol. one estimate I found has Peter Higgs' h-value at 10....
Source??
As the paper points out and you conveniently ignore, physicists score much lower than biologists, presumably because of the volume of work in life science compared to theoretical physics. The point on Dawkins is he scores very low for a biologist.
Paul Dirac was a leading physicist with numerous key discoveries in quantum mechanics, certainly not a lightweight.
I am still waiting for one of Dawkin's fans to enlighten us on a scientific discovery of his, as opposed to popularising others' work. I have not found any but perhaps they exist.0 -
According to Microsoft Academic Search...
Dawkins has a H-Index of 10.
Peter Higgs has a H-Index of 1.
Albert Einstein has a H-Index of 29.
Well that's clear as day, Dawkins is ten times the scientist that Higgs is, and almost a third as good at science as Einstein.
What's your H-Index nagirrac? I assume you know as you're always so quick to tell us all you're a scientist.0 -
For goodness sake, inserting the adjective "arguably" does not make your statement any more convincing. Yes, I mistyped your statement. However, I stand by argument that making a statement like "the Standard Model is arguably the most important theory in all of science" only serves to demonstrate your ignorance.Your arguments might have some merit if you did not continue to misquote me. Where did I say the Standard Model was the work of Higgs alone? He made a very significant contribution to the Standard Model.
I said "the Standard Model is arguably the most important theory in all of science. In my opinion a theory that describes what the physical universe is composed of is the most important theory in all of science, but that is just my opinion.
As for ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge, my undergraduate and graduate degrees and 30 years of work in a research scientific field would say otherwise.. but continue to attack the poster, it seems those who attack the poster on A&A are given a pass as long as they espouse the standard A&A opinions.
And what is your field of research? My own is mathematics.Richard Dawkins is a scientific lightweight compared to Peter Higgs. There is nothing whatsoever that Dawkins has published that made significant scientific progress in his field of study. Yes, he has done an excellent job popularising evolutionary Biology but there is a difference between a pop science writer and a likely Nobel prize winner. Higgs is a likely Nobel prize winner because of his "Higgs Mechanism" discovery, Dawkins is not because there is no such discovery or anything like it in his resume.
If you are looking for an analytical comparison between scientists then the h-index is useful. It ranks the productivity and impact of the published work of scientists, based on the number of papers they have published and how many times they have been cited in other publications. As the below paper by J.E. Hirsch who developed the metric explains (source: National Academy of Sciences (USA), biologists typically score higher than physicists.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569.full
Dawkins (from the ISI Web of Knowledge) scored 17. This is extremely low for a biologist. Dawkins simply did not do much original work, and his work has not been cited much. Leading scientists would be in the 60+ range with the top 10 scores in biological sciences ranging from 120 to 191.
I realize atheists love Dawkins, but he truly is not a leading scientist and no amount of jumping up and down and howling at the moon will change that.
I never mentioned h-index, but as pointed out by another poster, that argument does little for your position given that Higgs seems to have quite a low h-index. Personally I think that h-index is a very poor way to judge the quality of a scientists research.
Anyway, bringing up h-index is just another attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that you are clearly unable to speak authoritatively on Higgs contributions to physics. Your attempts to answer my challenge are seemingly based on whatever information you can scrounge up from google in the last few hours - so I'll ask again.
Can you say anything about Higgs' work (or Dawkins' work) work that apart from the stuff that you read on wikipedia? If not, please desist from making pronouncements that you have no place making0 -
Advertisement
-
Lol you first. And then provide a h-vaule you trust for Higgs. What with you making the claim and all...Source??
Ah right, so it's only a valid comparison when it shows your point is right, but isn't valid when it doesn;t...As the paper points out and you conveniently ignore, physicists score much lower than biologists, presumably because of the volume of work in life science compared to theoretical physics. The point on Dawkins is he scores very low for a biologist.
Very scientific indeed.
Yet has a very low h-value compared to other physicists. And Higgs who you argee is a leading physicist has an even lower score...Paul Dirac was a leading physicist with numerous key discoveries in quantum mechanics, certainly not a lightweight.
Seems like it's not that hard to be one in your eyes...
Just as long as you say stuff that you can twist to make it look like they agree with your nonsense beliefs.0 -
MagicMarker wrote: »According to Microsoft Academic Search...
Dawkins has a H-Index of 10.
Peter Higgs has a H-Index of 1.
Albert Einstein has a H-Index of 29.
Well that's clear as day, Dawkins is ten times the scientist that Higgs is, and almost a third as good at science as Einstein.
What's your H-Index nagirrac? I assume you know as you're always so quick to tell us all you're a scientist.
Considering Peter Higgs did most of his research and published the results of his research from 1951 to 1966 and the source you quote starts (for Higgs) in 1994, I think we can safely give a grade of F to the Microsoft Academic Search and yourself (for failing to spot the obvious). No extra credit either for Einstein's published work and citations starting in 1958.
My h-score is not relevant to this discussion, but perhaps you can help by tracking down one of Dawkin's discoveries.0 -
Considering Peter Higgs did most of his research and published the results of his research from 1951 to 1966 and the soucre you quote starts (for Higgs) in 1994, I think we can safely give a grade of F to the Microsoft Academic Search and yourself (for failing to spot the obvious). No extra credit either for Einstein's published work and citations starting in 1958.
You mean Higgs hasn't done anything in almost 50 years? Jaysus, I thought he was supposed to be good at this science lark?My h-score is not relevant to this discussion, but perhapos you can help by tracking down one of Dawkin's discoveries.
Why would I want to do that? I don't give a toss about any of his discoveries or lack there of. I personally find your ranting hilarious. You seem to be more concerned with what Dawkins says and does more so than any atheist I've ever met, the ironing is delicious.0 -
Lol you first. And then provide a h-vaule you trust for Higgs. What with you making the claim and all...
Ah right, so it's only a valid comparison when it shows your point is right, but isn't valid when it doesn;t...
Very scientific indeed.
Yet has a very low h-value compared to other physicists. And Higgs who you argee is a leading physicist has an even lower score...
Seems like it's not that hard to be one in your eyes...
Just as long as you say stuff that you can twist to make it look like they agree with your nonsense beliefs.
If your source for h-index scores is Microsoft Academic Search then you also get an F. The data for Paul Dirac starts in 1958, hardly scientific as you say yourself considering the Dirac equation dates from 1928.
I am not claiming the h-index is infalliable, but it is useful in comparing the productivity of scientists within their field. Compared to his past and present peers in Biology, Dawkins is very low on the scale.
More important than the h-index though is what scientific discovery was made, where did the individual move science along in terms of innovation. Any ideas on Dawkins?0 -
Sorry, You made the original claim. Please provide the source you use to determine Dawkins h-value first. Then provide sources for the other figures you quoted, then provide what you believe to be an accurate figure for higgs's.If your source for h-index scores is Microsoft Academic Search then you also get an F. The data for Paul Dirac starts in 1958, hardly scientific as you say yourself considering the Dirac equation dates from 1928.
Otherwise, why should I put more effort in than you are?
And compared to other physicists so is Higgs. Your definition is arbitary and dependant on your own personal bias.I am not claiming the h-index is infalliable, but it is useful in comparing the productivity of scientists within their field. Compared to his past and present peers in Biology, Dawkins is very low on the scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_bibliography#Academic_papersMore important than the h-index though is what scientific discovery was made, where did the individual move science along in terms of innovation. Any ideas on Dawkins?
Go nuts.
What were Higg's other achievements exactly?
Cause you must have a nice extensive list of them if you basing your claim on something other than a desperate and silly need to find a stick to beat mean old skeptics with.0 -
Advertisement
-
equivariant wrote: »Can you say anything about Higgs' work (or Dawkins' work) work that apart from the stuff that you read on wikipedia? If not, please desist from making pronouncements that you have no place making
According to who? I cannot express an opinion but other posters can dismiss a highly repected scientist as "old" and "dim"? Save the outrage.
Like all scientists I am mainly concerned with my own field (fMRI). I have a strong interest in theoretical physics and evolutionary Biology and have read extensively on the former and reasonably well on the latter (I have read most of Dawkins books for example, including the Extended Phenotype which in my opinion is his best). My opinion is that Higgs has contributed more to science in terms of discovery and that Dawkins has contributed more to science in terms of education.
Arguably is the key word in my sentence you misquoted. Arguably means it can be argued, and anyone who believes that the Standard Model cannot be argued as the most important theory in all of science is a statement of ignorance. Of course it can be argued as true, what theory could be more important than what the universe is made of?0 -
What were Higg's other achievements exactly?
Cause you must have a nice extensive list of them if you basing your claim on something other than a desperate and silly need to find a stick to beat mean old skeptics with.
Well done on digging up the wiki list on Dawkins. I am well aware of his published work, however that is not what I am referring to. In my opinion, Higgs discovery of the Higgs Mechanism to describe how sub atomic particles acquired mass in the early stages of our universe dwarfs anything Dawkins has done in terms of original work. If you could point me to a specific discovery that Dawkins is responsible for I will concede the point.
Dawkins is the one wielding a stick to beat those who have religious or spiritual beliefs. He is completely dishonest in attributing most of the world's evil to those that have such beliefs. That is the subject worth discussing and not which one of two atheist scientists is the better scientist. My only reason to defend Higgs was the scurrilous characterization of him as "old" and "dim" on the thread.0 -
And your opinion on what is and is not important research has no stock here when you believe that psychic dogs is valid research...In my opinion,
And making strawmen out of people's stances is dishonest.Dawkins is the one wielding a stick to beat those who have religious or spiritual beliefs. He is completely dishonest in attributing most of the world's evil to those that have such beliefs.
Not backing up figures, then demanding others to back them up is dishonest.
Moving goalposts is dishonest.
Making arguments from authority and from self authority is dishonest.
So maybe you should start your quest for honesty at home.
So why did you make that point to begin with?That is the subject worth discussing and not which one of two atheist scientists is the better scientist.
And please point to an example of people doing this.My only reason to defend Higgs was the scurrilous characterization of him as "old" and "dim" on the thread.
As people are only referring to him as such in his rather ill-concieved arguments against Dawkins, not his scientific research.0 -
And please point to an example of people doing this.
As people are only referring to him as such in his rather ill-concieved arguments against Dawkins, not his scientific research.
So because he disagrees with Dawkins is justification to call him "old" and "dim"?
Why are his arguments "ill conceived"? Do you think all scientists should bahave like sheep and worship at the altar of Saint Richard? Ironic that so many atheists accuse believers of being sheep while being sheep themselves.
The new atheist poster children like Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins have no credibility on moral or ethical questions (for reasons explained over and over, but ignored by atheists) and need to be quite rightly called out by those that have a solid moral and ethical compass.0 -
Because, making an argument as inane and ill-informed as "Dawkins is a fundamentalist" betray an inane and ill-informed position on religious matters. (Though I think it's possible that the journalist was more than likely quoting a little liberally and pressing the issue for a story.)So because he disagrees with Dawkins is justification to call him "old" and "dim"?
Why are his arguments "ill conceived"?
This has been explained in the posts you seemed to have not read in your quest to show us how to be real scientists :rolleyes:
So another strawman, personal attacks, non sequiters, arguments from consequences, ignoring all of my points, moving the goalposts....Do you think all scientists should bahave like sheep and worship at the altar of Saint Richard? Ironic that so many atheists accuse believers of being sheep while being sheep themselves.
The new atheist poster children like Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins have no credibility on moral or ethical questions (for reasons explained over and over, but ignored by atheists) and need to be quite rightly called out by those that have a solid moral and ethical compass.
Again, casting doubt on you own claimed expertise... If you were as good and as fair of a scientist as you like to present yourself as, you wouldn't be making using such dishonest, childish and pathetic attacks.
Just as if Higgs was as informed as you want to think he was on the issue of religion, he wouldn't have made such a stupid argument.
Yet...0 -
Because, making an argument as inane and ill-informed as "Dawkins is a fundamentalist" betray an inane and ill-informed position on religious matters. Just as if Higgs was as informed as you want to think he was on the issue of religion, he wouldn't have made such a stupid argument.
Like others on this thread I think you are completely missing the point Higgs was making and perhaps a closer reading of his quotations might help rather than just picking up on the headline. lol to Higgs being "un-informed" on religion. I happen to agree, but do you think Dawkins is any more informed?
My interpretation of what Higgs is saying is that a lot of scientists have religious or spirtual beliefs. His criticism of Dawkins is the focus on fundamentalism as if all such people were fundamentalists. I would agree with Higgs on this, while fundamentalists are a loud minority in society the majority and perhaps vast majority of scientists who hold religious or spiritual beliefs are not fundamentalists. I can speak from my own experience, although I have met many dozens of scientists during my lifetime of various religious and spiritual beliefs I have genuinely never met a fundamentalist religious scientist. Perhaps I have just been lucky. Regardless of their public image, I would say the vast majority of scientists are very open minded and humble in private.
If we define a fundamentalist as one who (a) holds a set of beliefs that are not open to question, (b) has strong intolerance of other's viewpoints, (c) regard themselves as defenders of the truth, and (d) loudest and most demanding to be heard, the most obvious and obnoxious of these groups are Christian fundamentalists in the US. However, these people are a small minority, they appear significant because they are so loud. Although atheists hate to hear this, the above is also a good description for some atheists, and yes it is just as unfair to tar all atheists with the "fundamentalist" tag.
It is quite possible and indeed reasonable to be a scientist and hold religious or spiritual views, and trying to tar all such people with the "fundamentalist" brush is as Higgs quite correctly says "another kind of fundamentalism". In describing it as "embarrassing" I would venture that Higgs is expressing what a lot of scientists believe privately.0 -
Yes but it is irrelevant to the point I an making and you are trying to avoid by ranting. (Amoung the many other points you've avoided.)lol to Higgs being "un-informed" on religion. I happen to agree, but do you think Dawkins is any more informed?
And this is a misunderstanding of Dawkins position. People using it are either using a dishonest strawman (as you are, as per usual) or don't actually know what his position is (which is what I believe Higgs is doing.)My interpretation of what Higgs is saying is that a lot of scientists have religious or spirtual beliefs. His criticism of Dawkins is the focus on fundamentalism as if all such people were fundamentalists.
...
It is quite possible and indeed reasonable to be a scientist and hold religious or spiritual views, and trying to tar all such people with the "fundamentalist" brush is as Higgs quite correctly says "another kind of fundamentalism". In describing it as "embarrassing" I would venture that Higgs is expressing what a lot of scientists believe privately.0 -
Sure, loads of people (religious and otherwise) find Dawkins a bit mouthy and wish he'd stop banging on. But none of this challenges the substance of anything he bangs on about, so this whole article is a bit moot.
If you are also one of the ones who had a "quick read" of the article missing Higgs' actual words I don't understand how you could have posted this in light of:sponsoredwalk wrote: »I don't know how to interpret the quote "What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists" as saying anything but that Dawkins is engaging in a fallacy by attacking religion with the argumentum-ad-fundamentalist Higgs says he often makes since "there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists". The whole point is that Dawkins is justifying his attacks on "The people who have a fuzzy belief about a personal god that they feel no need to impose on others" by resorting to both highlighting what fundamentalists do & "the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief", but that he is unhappy with Dawkins approach to dealing with believers (since he apparently so often ignores those "believers who are just not fundamentalists")
calling the entire article "a bit moot" in light of this is something else tbh, he's offered up what he sees as a very clear contradiction in Dawkins arguments (something nobody seems to care enough about to focus on, though it is the entire substance of the article). If it genuinely is that confusing I've explained it again below.That doesn't contradict what people are saying on this thread in relation to Dawkins or Higgs being wrong, so I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make.
I posted that as a response to a specific statement from one person, not to everyone as a means to contradict them.equivariant wrote: »No he didn't - at least not in the guardian report of his interview. He is quoted as saying
" I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind"
without any justification for that accusation - accusing Dawkins of focusing too much on the fundies is not a justificatin for labelling Dawkins a fundie.
Did you actually read the article? He very clearly said:
"What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists,"
& then goes on to say:
""Fundamentalism is another problem."
How else is one supposed to interpret this? What other motivation would he have for pointing out that Dawkins "too often" focuses "his attack" on fundamentalists to the exclusion of those who are "just not fundamentalists" than as a means to imply that he is offering up flawed logic? Is it not an immediate contradiction to imply all of something is bad by focusing only on a small part of it when the global structure of something does not wholly depend on what happens locally? How can you credibly attack all of religion by focusing only on the extremes? How can you credibly say physics is bulls**t by focusing only on the effects of the atomic bomb? When he says:
"Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind"
& you take, say, the sentence "The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs" from wikipedia (if this is too convenient for me for your liking offer a better one) & you see that he justifies himself with apparently flawed logic then you can't help but see it's at least probable that an "unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs" may be what's driving someone to offer up leaps in logic with a straight face. The interesting thing, to me, is how nobody even cares about this, about whether there's any substance to what he's actually saying (& that could have been an interesting discussion), instead people just focus on his age, his intelligence, his has-been status, his qualifications & the fact that he's so scurrilously dared to challenge the words of someone winging it on the frontlines.equivariant wrote: »So unless there is some details omitted from the Guardian report, I stand by my assessment that it is just lazy minded parroting of a common misapprehension about Dawkins
I find it hard to take what you say seriously since you completely ignore the very few details present in the article tbh, following your lead I could just as easily say you are doing nothing more than parroting the standard retort against what you see as the "lazy minded parroting of a common misapprehension about Dawkins" & try to actually justify myself by using the arguments I've just written above since I'm justifying everything I'm saying with reference to the actual words behind all of this not just repeating standard phrases bereft of any foundations, but then again I don't get my kicks from simultaneously insulting & placing myself above those whom I disagree with, I'd rather just go for the substance & as of yet I quite genuinely haven't seen you trying to do that...equivariant wrote: »This doesn't make any sense as far as I can see. Nagirrac was not following up on anything that had previously been said in this discussion. He was derailing by bringing Hitchens political views into a discussion where they are of no relevance.
Again you ignore the very few details present in the text before you - (S)he very clearly said "As for Peter Higgs himself" before writing the paragraph including Hitchens & Harris - (s)he wasn't the first person to focus on Higgs as a person in this thread, that was accomplished by people such as you calling him "a little dim". Further the justification for focusing on "political and religious views", where Hitchens enters the discussion, is provided by sentences talking about how he is "insulated from the kind of front-line confrontations that Dawkins engages in", let alone as a general means to discuss how this senile out of touch old man measures up against a "new atheist".0 -
sponsoredwalk, Dawkins may (in some people's view) focus on the problems only caused by fundamentalism, but what does that mean ultimately? Nothing.
The undermining of the beliefs of fundamentalists and passive believers is the same if it is succinctly made.
The article just reads to me like the opinion (which we as all entitled to) of someone who thinks Dawkins focuses too much on the extreme negative, when the reality it is a search for truth. The fact that fundamentalism exists is an elephant in the room for moderates.0 -
sponsoredwalk, Dawkins may (in some people's view) focus on the problems only caused by fundamentalism, but what does that mean ultimately? Nothing.
The undermining of the beliefs of fundamentalists and passive believers is the same if it is succinctly made.
Are you saying that the actions of fundamentalists definitively speak for every religious person, or even that a valid argument of this kind can actually be made?The article just reads to me like the opinion (which we as all entitled to) of someone who thinks Dawkins focuses too much on the extreme negative, when the reality it is a search for truth.
I would imagine Higgs' implication is that it can hardly be a search for truth when he, according to Higgs, makes such a basic logical fallacy as to tarnish the non-fundamentalists by so often referencing the actions of the fundamentalists (though if you sincerely believe such craziness is actually sound logic then that would explain a lot) & that he thinks it could better be explained by an "unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs" (the wikipedia explanation for the word fundamentalism linked to above). Just writing him off for arguing Dawkins focuses too much on fundamentalists is not actually an argument though, I can really only explain it as a consequence of thinking it actually makes sense to blame the many non-fundamentalists by the actions of the few fundamentalists though there may be a better reason you have?The fact that fundamentalism exists is an elephant in the room for moderates.
This is no different to that which a critic of physics or biology justifying themselves by referencing the atomic bomb or the sterilization of black people & people with psychological problems etc..., wouldn't say but I'd bet my life you wouldn't say this kind of scientific fundamentalism is an elephant in the room for scientists or the moderate enabler scientists, let alone the moderate enabler public constituting you & me :rolleyes: In fact just try and respond to this talking about what a fallacy the first sentence of this paragraph is, change the words referencing scientists to words referencing religion & there would be no difference - how in the world do you not see that?0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement