6 ms·

Allow me to humbly suggest that Mr. Dawkins is a biologist, not a sociologist or an economist, so his ponderings on the metaphysics, such as his ideas on the re

Allow me to humbly suggest that Mr. Dawkins is a biologist, not a sociologist or an economist, so his ponderings on the metaphysics, such as his ideas on the religious state of our religious states, while interesting, should be regarded as that of any layman's opinion.

helveticaman 18y ago
I disagree; an evolutionary biologist who knows his game theory may wel know more about how the mind works than an economist (a student of "the dismal science") or a sociologist (don't get me started). Just because Dawkins is not an accredited expert at the subject he discusses doesn't mean his arguments are false.
- Chocobean 18y ago
  oh nono, I didnt say that this argument would be false, for starters because I haven't read the book and heard the argument to begin with. I was hoping, rather, to caution against believing anything without first examining the arguments simply because of "star appeal". Y'know, "a celebrity said it it must be true...." One wouldn't believe scientific theories from the pulpit without thinking, so why shouldn't one be a little skeptical hearing metaphysics from a scientist?
  - hugh 18y ago
    Oh, I never intended to argue from Dawkins' authority. I only meant to point out an interesting theory (which I personally think might have a bunch of truth to it) and to acknowledge where I got it from.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
hugh 18y ago
Of course. Fortunately, sociology seems to be one of those handwavey areas where the opinions of laymen are, on average, not much worse than those of experts. Or at least, that's my opinion, speaking as a layman.
- wheels 18y ago
  I find it entertaining how computer programmers will complain about people not getting that their work is not about fixing printers one moment and the next dismiss an entire body of academic work that they're almost completely unfamiliar with.
sfg 18y ago
Does it matter who has the idea? I know people filter ideas based upon the authority figures that approve it, but that kind of lazy evaluation should only be applied by people who do not really care and the thoughts of such people do not really matter as it is at most something they mention in conversation. Those who do care should judge the idea on it's own merits conducting whatever research is necessary rather than calling to authority to beg for answers. Of course, this means I agree with you! His ideas should be treated like any layman's, it's just that so should everyone else's.
- wheels 18y ago
  Your business plan doesn't scale.
jrockway 18y ago
Dawkins is a biologist, not a sociologist or an economist Thinking is thinking.
netcan 18y ago
That line of argument is part of examining religion as a social phenomenon using ideas of non-genetic evolution. The idea is that you can find evolutionary processes at play that are not a consequence of genes. It's a theory explaining parts of sociology with evolutionary biology/zoology. This is a actually an area where he is a leading expert. As an example, Richard Dawkins coined the term 'meme' which is a term describing a gene equivalent for social traits. 'Memetics' often ends looking at religion for various reasons (availablitlity of data for one). His focus (obsession) with religion is not incidental. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Memetic_accounts_of_religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Memetic_accounts_of_religi...

helveticaman 18y ago

I disagree; an evolutionary biologist who knows his game theory may wel know more about how the mind works than an economist (a student of "the dismal science") or a sociologist (don't get me started). Just because Dawkins is not an accredited expert at the subject he discusses doesn't mean his arguments are false.

Chocobean 18y ago
oh nono, I didnt say that this argument would be false, for starters because I haven't read the book and heard the argument to begin with. I was hoping, rather, to caution against believing anything without first examining the arguments simply because of "star appeal". Y'know, "a celebrity said it it must be true...." One wouldn't believe scientific theories from the pulpit without thinking, so why shouldn't one be a little skeptical hearing metaphysics from a scientist?
- hugh 18y ago
  Oh, I never intended to argue from Dawkins' authority. I only meant to point out an interesting theory (which I personally think might have a bunch of truth to it) and to acknowledge where I got it from.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]

hugh 18y ago

Of course. Fortunately, sociology seems to be one of those handwavey areas where the opinions of laymen are, on average, not much worse than those of experts. Or at least, that's my opinion, speaking as a layman.

wheels 18y ago
I find it entertaining how computer programmers will complain about people not getting that their work is not about fixing printers one moment and the next dismiss an entire body of academic work that they're almost completely unfamiliar with.

sfg 18y ago

Does it matter who has the idea? I know people filter ideas based upon the authority figures that approve it, but that kind of lazy evaluation should only be applied by people who do not really care and the thoughts of such people do not really matter as it is at most something they mention in conversation. Those who do care should judge the idea on it's own merits conducting whatever research is necessary rather than calling to authority to beg for answers. Of course, this means I agree with you! His ideas should be treated like any layman's, it's just that so should everyone else's.

wheels 18y ago
Your business plan doesn't scale.

jrockway 18y ago

Dawkins is a biologist, not a sociologist or an economist Thinking is thinking.

netcan 18y ago

That line of argument is part of examining religion as a social phenomenon using ideas of non-genetic evolution. The idea is that you can find evolutionary processes at play that are not a consequence of genes. It's a theory explaining parts of sociology with evolutionary biology/zoology. This is a actually an area where he is a leading expert. As an example, Richard Dawkins coined the term 'meme' which is a term describing a gene equivalent for social traits. 'Memetics' often ends looking at religion for various reasons (availablitlity of data for one). His focus (obsession) with religion is not incidental. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Memetic_accounts_of_religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Memetic_accounts_of_religi...