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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Scientists a little "embarrassed" By Dawkins?
Comments
-
-
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
-
Is that what it is? So why do the catholic church, the bible, quran... exist?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.
Being world class in one field does not mean you cannot be a little dim in another, especially at 83.philologos wrote: »Even people on this thread calling a world class physicist a "little dim" is absolutely absurd.
It's the typical condescending 'let them have their silly beliefs if they don't know any better.' Ironically, some religious people align with this opinion to attack Dawkins et al.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.0 -
Advertisement