>Thankfully the person(s) responsible for Collins' appointment also did not trust the claims of those who opposed Collins' appointment simply on religious/ideological grounds.
I think it is fair to say that Collins is viewed by the larger culture as being qualified and Dawkins' objections are marginalized precisely because his appointment came from the Obama administration. Had this happened during the Bush administration, there would be many more echoing Dawkins.
John
On Thu Aug 27th, 2009 12:17 AM EDT Murray Hogg wrote:
>Hi Schwarzwald,
>
>You wrote:
>> If Coyne, Harris, or Dawkins were for whatever reason being considered to head up an important scientific research team, would their attitude/words in this case serve as reason to believe they weren't fit for the task?
>
>Yeah, IF they were being considered... ROTFLMHO!
>
>> To put it more bluntly: Would you trust a manager who obviously and unapologetically demonstrated that he would be willing to block the addition of a team member, *even if this team member had a long and established track record the manager himself admitted he could not dispute*, because he disliked this prospective team member's beliefs and/or thought they were silly?
>
>Unequivocally: No.
>
>Thankfully the person(s) responsible for Collins' appointment also did not trust the claims of those who opposed Collins' appointment simply on religious/ideological grounds.
>> Wouldn't that sort of attitude, frankly, be one of those "threats to science" I hear so much about?
>
>Speaking theoretically: one would want to be careful to be clear what one was saying. The argument would not be that those who share the bias of Dawkins et al are themselves incapable of scientific competence (this would be merely to fall into precisely the same fallacy). Rather the argument would be that science is harmed when people who are (actually or potentially) scientifically competent are disqualified from practising science on the basis of a belief which has no demonstrable impact on scientific competence.
>
>Speaking more concretely: I think it obvious that science IS harmed by the efforts of those who seek to further the warfare model. So one need not put things the least tentatively: Dawkins attitude is very much, in my opinion, a threat to science. I'm just thankful that science is such an extraordinarily robust enterprise.
>
>Blessings,
>Murray
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 27 02:31:52 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 27 2009 - 02:31:52 EDT