Re: [Phys-l] Richard Dawkins Answers Reddit Questions

[William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>]

The statement indicates that people with religious habits and ways of  
knowing are significantly handicapped, meaning they somehow are unable  
to decouple their religious beliefs and the scientific enterprise.  
Seems insulting to people with religious beliefs, to me.

Bill


William C. Robertson, Ph.D.


On Nov 16, 2010, at 10:38 PM, Bernard Cleyet wrote:

> Seems like an analytic statement to me.  Define religious habits and  
> especially ways of knowing, compare w/ scientific habits and ways of  
> knowing and you'll find they are incompatible.
>
> bc thinks JM forgot what he wrote, and (bc) sometimes has great  
> difficulty understanding the religious mind.
>
> p.s.  I don't think it's anti-religious; it's just don't expect to  
> get very far using religious methods in the lab. Just like don't  
> expect to get very far using arithmetik to solve a differential  
> equation -- well not very good example, as one can use numerical  
> methods which are arithmetik.   If it were a good example, would  
> anyone believe my statement was an attack against arithmeticians?
>
> Initially string theorists were compared to believers, because their  
> results were not testable; well that's changed according to G. Kane  
> (current PT).
>
> On 2010, Nov 16, , at 15:13, William Robertson wrote:
>
> > You stated:
> >
> > but I would maintain that anyone who brings traditional religious
> > habits and "ways of knowing" into the lab with them, at the very  
> > least
> > operates under a very significant handicap.
> >
> >
> > Okay, so I substituted severe for significant. In what other way  
> > did I
> > misrepresent what you said?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > William C. Robertson, Ph.D.
> >
> >
> > On Nov 16, 2010, at 4:10 PM, John Mallinckrodt wrote:
> >
> > > William Robertson wrote:
> > >
> > > > You state that anyone with religious beliefs is operating under a
> > > > severe handicap when doing science.
> > >
> > > Nope; sorry.  Not what I said.  Read it again.
> > >
> > > > That's not just an unbiased, objective view. It's anti-religion. To
> > > > make such a statement as if it's obvious to everyone is rather
> > > > arrogant and certainly not fair-minded. I believe that's the kind
> > > > of comment that raises Rick's ire.
> > >
> > > If you want to take issue with what I said, I'm all ears, but please
> > > don't construct and then attack straw men.
> > >
> > > John Mallinckrodt
> > > Cal Poly Pomona
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Forum for Physics Educators
> > > Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > > https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Forum for Physics Educators
> > Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l