What a terrible title. 137 interviews, of those 48 scientists mentioned Dawkins (unprompted) of those 80% felt he "in some way misrepresented science or the scientific process".
It's also unclear if they have a problem with the man's scientific work (he is/was an evolutionary biologist first) or is hardline stance against religion.
Religion, when it conflicts with other people in society, is politics. Dawkings tries to actively change people's minds. It's political crusade. Not scientific one.
Politically influencing people is not scientific presentation. There is tension between representing facts and effect. If Dawkins wants to have maximum political effect, he must optimize his fact/demagoque ratio for maximum impact. It's probably enough for Dawkins to be just little more accurate and convincing on his critique than opposition to turn the minds of people and win arguments.
I have always understood that when Dawkins talks about religion, he is not representing scientific approach. It's not even his field of research. It's unfortunate if he is conveying the false impression of solid science. He uses valid scientific arguments, but his writings as a whole are not coherent scientific argument against religion.
5 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 16.2 ms ] threadIt's also unclear if they have a problem with the man's scientific work (he is/was an evolutionary biologist first) or is hardline stance against religion.
Nothing to see here, just click bait at work.
Politically influencing people is not scientific presentation. There is tension between representing facts and effect. If Dawkins wants to have maximum political effect, he must optimize his fact/demagoque ratio for maximum impact. It's probably enough for Dawkins to be just little more accurate and convincing on his critique than opposition to turn the minds of people and win arguments.
I have always understood that when Dawkins talks about religion, he is not representing scientific approach. It's not even his field of research. It's unfortunate if he is conveying the false impression of solid science. He uses valid scientific arguments, but his writings as a whole are not coherent scientific argument against religion.