Re: Dawkins dissembles?

From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sat Jul 12 2003 - 22:35:34 EDT

  • Next message: Jay Willingham: "Re: Dawkins dissembles?"

    Regarding the Dawkins piece, apparently there is a concerted effort going on
    here, as his partner in the US, Daniel Dennett, has an op-ed piece in the
    Saturday NYT calling on "brights" to come out of the closet and declare
    themselves in the US. See

        http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/opinion/12DENN.html?th

    In fact, Dennett refers to Dawkins piece.

    His opening paragraph is a classic:

        "The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a
    bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a
    supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or
    the Easter Bunny - or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety
    of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a
    disbelief in black magic - and life after death."

    God trivialized by being associated with the Easter Bunny; belief in life
    after death demeaned by association with black magic.

    Bob Schneider

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Dr. Blake Nelson" <bnelson301@yahoo.com>
    To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 9:18 PM
    Subject: Dawkins dissembles?

    >
    > FWIW, did anyone see this Dawkins' piece from last
    > month's Guardian?
    >
    > http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html
    >
    > He cites the figure the Skeptic published as 93% of
    > NAS members not being theistic. IIRC, this is a
    > statistically invalid number, because the survey of
    > American scientists was not designed to specifically
    > sample the subset who were NAS members and the Skeptic
    > basically pulled out only the respondents who were NAS
    > members to come up with the percentage. (IIRC an
    > article based on the 93% was rejected through peer
    > review, although not by the Skeptic.)
    >
    > Now, given that Dawkins is supposed to be all for
    > banishing superstition, why does he choose to rely on
    > bad statistics in his anti-religious polemics? I
    > think I know the answer, but to paraphrase Dawkins,
    > isn't anyone who claims that 93% of NAS members are
    > not theistic based on a statistically invalid sample
    > either lying, insane or stupid? Which one of those
    > categories does Dawkins fit into?
    >
    > Anyone know if someone wrote to the Guardian about the
    > misrepresentation of survey data (presuming my
    > recollection is not faulty) by Dawkins?
    >
    >
    >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
    > http://sbc.yahoo.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 22:36:07 EDT