Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Guy Threepwood]

What? Not a day passes that I don't read about some new breakthrough in cancer research.
Are you saying that if we all believed in your god we'd be making more headway in the treatment of diseases?

As with the BB/ v static universes and QM v classical physics, if we had less blind faith in atheism, we could clear a wider straighter path for scientific progress wherever that takes us, not one that constantly seeks to dead end at the first convenient stop

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

two high school dropouts from Ohio contributed powered flight, arguably one of the greatest contributions of all time- how about the greatest living scientist- you can't name anything of substance? me neither

Physics and biology aren't my strong points. Psychology, psychiatry, true crime, art, religion and philosophy are more my thing.

if scientists had a little less belief in atheism, the origins of the universe would have been established far earlier- the same applies to any scientific study.

Um, no. The natural sciences rely on evidence, not religious beliefs. The big bang may end up being disproved by quantum physics, anyway.

blind faith is faith which does not acknowledge itself

What are you referring to?

as above, atheism has been the barrier to answering the greatest scientific questions of all time

How so? And how would believing in your god answer any scientific questions? What does your religious belief have to do with science?

 

[SkepticThinker]

two high school dropouts from Ohio contributed powered flight, arguably the greatest scientific contribution of all time- how about the greatest living scientist- you can't name anything of substance? me neither

Powered flight is arguably the greatest scientific contribution of all time? Really?
How about electricity? Vaccinations? Germ theory? Penicillin? The mapping of the human genome? Pasteurization?

if scientists had a little less belief in atheism, the origins of the universe would have been established far earlier- the same applies to any scientific study.

Oh is that why we didn't have any good workable hypotheses until the twentieth century? We know how popular atheism has been in history, right?

Besides, we still don't know the origins of the universe.

as above, atheism has been the barrier to answering the greatest scientific questions of all time

Horsepucky.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As with the BB/ v static universes and QM v classical physics, if we had less blind faith in atheism, we could clear a wider straighter path for scientific progress wherever that takes us, not one that constantly seeks to dead end at the first convenient stop

There's no faith involved in atheism, in the same way there's no faith involved in not believing in the existence of bigfoot or the flying spaghetti monster.

"Seeks a dead end at the first convenient stop?" What are you talking about? And what does this have to do with my questions about disease?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Powered flight is arguably the greatest scientific contribution of all time? Really?
How about electricity? Vaccinations? Germ theory? Penicillin? The mapping of the human genome? Pasteurization?



Oh is that why we didn't have any good workable hypotheses until the twentieth century? We know how popular atheism has been in history, right?

Besides, we still don't know the origins of the universe.



Horsepucky.

Culminating with putting a man on the moon, yes - controlled flight is generally seen as one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs, since it was sought since ancient times.

But, okay- electricity if you prefer...

Edison dropped out of school even earlier than the Wright brothers!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There's no faith involved in atheism, in the same way there's no faith involved in not believing in the existence of bigfoot or the flying spaghetti monster.

"Seeks a dead end at the first convenient stop?" What are you talking about? And what does this have to do with my questions about disease?

There's no faith in not believing the existence of the flying spaghetti multiverse either, but that doesn't change the faith I do have. We all believe in something- whether or not we are willing to acknowledge and defend it on it's own merits.

Blind faith is faith which does not acknowledge itself.

You'd have to read the last couple of pages for the rest, don't need to repeat

 

[SkepticThinker]

Culminating with putting a man on the moon, yes - controlled flight is generally seen as one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs, since it was sought since ancient times.

But, okay- electricity if you prefer...

Edison dropped out of school even earlier than the Wright brothers!

You're really good at feeding your confirmation bias. Nice job homing in on that one single word in my post and ignoring all the rest.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There's no faith in not believing the existence of the flying spaghetti multiverse either, but that doesn't change the faith I do have. We all believe in something- whether or not we are willing to acknowledge and defend it on it's own merits.

Blind faith is faith which does not acknowledge itself.

You'd have to read the last couple of pages for the rest, don't need to repeat

I have already read the last couple of pages. My questions about disease stand.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're really good at feeding your confirmation bias. Nice job homing in on that one single word in my post and ignoring all the rest.

You listed electricity first in talking about the greatest scientific discoveries, and it's inventor further underscores my point

If you have any substantive rebuttal to the actual point I'm all ears

 

[SkepticThinker]

You listed electricity first in talking about the greatest scientific discoveries, and it's inventor further underscores my point

If you have any substantive rebuttal to the actual point I'm all ears

I gave you one and asked some questions. You ignored all that and focused in on electricity and ignored the rest that didn't reinforce your point.

The "greatest scientific discovery" is a completely subjective category, just by the way.

 

[leibowde84]

evolution is what atheism supports, and Dawkins is an atheist

There are many scientists who are skeptical of atheism and are free to examine the evidence in fields like biochemistry- without the explicit predetermined conclusions

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, as evolution in no way speaks to the existence of God and certainly does not speak at all to life coming from non-life. It is also supported by the vast majority of scientists from every field. Most of those scientists are theists as well.

Why did you bring up atheism? How is it relevant? And, why is there almost complete scientific concensus when it comes to the ToE?

 

[leibowde84]

As with the BB/ v static universes and QM v classical physics, if we had less blind faith in atheism, we could clear a wider straighter path for scientific progress wherever that takes us, not one that constantly seeks to dead end at the first convenient stop

Theism is guilty of this. Atheism is not. Faith can quickly become the enemy of discovery when that faith is in God. Atheists are open to verifiable evidence for God, but none has been provided. And, speculation doesn't count. Theists merely stick to the old, tired plan of trying to point out flaws in evokution, rather than providing verifiable evidence for an alternative on its own merits.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I gave you one and asked some questions. You ignored all that and focused in on electricity and ignored the rest that didn't reinforce your point.

The "greatest scientific discovery" is a completely subjective category, just by the way.

so electricity and flight both came from early drop outs from school..

next was vaccinations-

It was noticed during the 18th century that people who had suffered from the less virulent cowpox were immune to smallpox and the first recorded use of this idea was by a farmer Benjamin Jesty

I'm sure if we work our way down the list we'll eventually get to an academic, but I think my point is made here. Academics are hardly the root of scientific understanding

I'm still waiting to hear what Hawking and Dawkins' greatest contributions to scientific progress were, anybody?

Dr Ben Carson was a great pioneer of neurology, in the real world, not just hypothetical academia, his contribution to medical science is unambiguous, never mind how many lives have been saved by his work

Dawkins calls Carson a 'disgrace'

 

[SkepticThinker]

so electricity and flight both came from early drop outs from school..

next was vaccinations-

It was noticed during the 18th century that people who had suffered from the less virulent cowpox were immune to smallpox and the first recorded use of this idea was by a farmer Benjamin Jesty

I'm sure if we work our way down the list we'll eventually get to an academic, but I think my point is made here. Academics are hardly the root of scientific understanding

Dr John Fewster (1738-1824) was a surgeon and apothecary in Thornbury, Gloucestershire. Fewster, a friend and professional colleague of Edward Jenner, played an important role in the discovery of the smallpox vaccine. In 1765 Fewster read a paper to the Medical Society of London entitled “Cow pox and its ability to prevent smallpox”, 31 years before Jenner’s experiment on James Phipps.[1]

In 1763, Fewster noted that two brothers (named Creed) had both been variolated (purposefully infected with smallpox) but that one did not react at all to variolation. On questioning, this subject had never had smallpox, but had previously contracted cowpox. This prompted Fewster to wonder whether cowpox might protect against smallpox, a notion of which he was previously unaware. He is reported to have discussed this possibility over a Convivio-Medical Society dinner at the Ship Inn in Alveston. He also encouraged others to take up the inquiry. Amongst those at the meeting was Edward Jenner, a young medical apprentice at the time.[2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fewster


Benjamin Jesty (c. 1736 – 16 April 1816) was a farmer at Yetminster in Dorset, England, notable for his early experiment in inducing immunity against smallpox using cowpox.

The notion that those people infected with cowpox, a relatively mild disease, were subsequently protected against smallpox was not an uncommon observation with country folk in the late 18th century, but Jesty was one of the first to intentionally administer the less virulent virus. He was one of the six English, Danish and German people who reportedly administered cowpox to artificially induce immunity against smallpox from 1770 to 1791; only Gloucestershire apothecary and surgeon Dr John Fewster's 1765 paper in the London Medical Society[1] and Jobst Bose of Göttingen, Germany with his 1769 inoculations pre-dated Jesty's work.[2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Jesty


Things like this don't happen in a vacuum. You need scientific knowledge to build on in the first place. And there have been many, many scientific breakthroughs made by people who were educated in, and spent their lives studying science, obviously. You don't have to be a "crank" or an outsider to do good science.

But I'm not sure exactly what your point is supposed to be. That practicing science academically is a waste of time? That we'd be have more scientific knowledge if less people had science degrees? Or there were less atheist scientists?

I'm still waiting to hear what Hawking and Dawkins' greatest contributions to scientific progress were, anybody?

Dr Ben Carson was a great pioneer of neurology, in the real world, not just academia, his contribution to medical science is unambiguous, never mind how many lives have been saved by his work

Dawkins calls Carson a 'disgrace'

I guess you'd better get Googling then.

Ben Carson's views are quite bizarre, if you ask me. So I guess I agree with Richard Dawkins on that. Which isn't to diminish his contributions to neurology (whatever they may be). On the same note, Isaac Newton was practically a scientific genius, but his views on alchemy were pretty crazy. That doesn't make him a dummy overall, of course.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Dr John Fewster (1738-1824) was a surgeon and apothecary in Thornbury, Gloucestershire. Fewster, a friend and professional colleague of Edward Jenner, played an important role in the discovery of the smallpox vaccine.

wow. so there was actually an academic who was a friend of a Dr who played an important role in the discovery

I stand corrected, what would we do without academics- everybody needs friends!

I guess you'd better get Googling then.

I did but couldn't find anything particularly substantive. They are referred to as good or great scientists as in the OP, which underscores the point, being a 'good scientist' academically has little or nothing to do with any actual practical scientific contribution

So in short, science the method, and science the academic pursuit are two very distinct things, historically often diametrically opposed, and it is the former which produces the practical verifiable (scientific) progress
The latter produces book sales, TV appearances and awards

Ben Carson's views are quite bizarre, if you ask me. So I guess I agree with Richard Dawkins on that.

<20% believe in Dawkins style evolution, most find that more bizarre- but I don't think that personal belief makes him or anyone a 'disgrace'. I know and love many people who are absolutely convinced about evolution, UFOs, global warming and Big Foot- we all believe in something-

The problem with calling people ugly names for their beliefs, is that you can never change your mind, no matter the evidence, or you become all the names you called others. That's why Hoyle rejected the BB till his grave. And this above all is what makes Dawkins a poor scientist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, as evolution in no way speaks to the existence of God

You could have a heated debate about that with the world's most renowned evolutionist and author of the book 'The God Delusion'!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Boy oh boy, you certainly are selective about what you read and take in. AND reply to. You must be stuck in quote mining mode or something.

wow. so there was actually an academic who was a friend of a Dr who played an important role in the discovery

I stand corrected, what would we do without academics- everybody needs friends!

Uh no. Try reading it again.

I did but couldn't find anything particularly substantive. They are referred to as good or great scientists as in the OP, which underscores the point, being a 'good scientist' academically has little or nothing to do with any actual practical scientific contribution

I didn't start the thread.

So in short, science the method, and science the academic pursuit are two very distinct things, historically often diametrically opposed, and it is the former which produces the practical verifiable (scientific) progress
The latter produces book sales, TV appearances and awards

Where do you think the scientific method came from?

These aren't two different things. During one's academic pursuit, one employs the scientific method.

<20% believe in Dawkins style evolution, most find that more bizarre- but I don't think that personal belief makes him or anyone a 'disgrace'. I know and love many people who are absolutely convinced about evolution, UFOs, global warming and Big Foot- we all believe in something-

The problem with calling people ugly names for their beliefs, is that you can never change your mind, no matter the evidence, or you become all the names you called others. That's why Hoyle rejected the BB till his grave. And this above all is what makes Dawkins a poor scientist.

Uh yeah. If you hadn't cut my post up into little bits you would have noticed that I said somebody can be a brilliant scientist and do great work but still have crazy ideas in another area of life. That doesn't make the person an all around idiot, just not so bright in that one area. I'm guessing that maybe Dawkins is talking about Carson's ideas about creationism, but I could be wrong.

If someone holds a belief that is at odds with the facts, then I think the responsible thing for anybody to do is to point that out.

 

[leibowde84]

You could have a heated debate about that with the world's most renowned evolutionist and author of the book 'The God Delusion'!

I've read the book and seen countless debates with Dawkins. I have never heard him make the claim that evolution makes claims about the existence of God. Can you provide a quote? All I've ever heard him say is that God is not necessary for evolution to work, but that is a far cry from what you are claiming.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You could have a heated debate about that with the world's most renowned evolutionist and author of the book 'The God Delusion'!

I think he would agree with leibowde84.