3 ms·
I see Meyer being favorably cited here, but his two major books have been pretty firmly rejected by real scientists from everything I have seen. To the extent
by glenstein 3y ago
I see Meyer being favorably cited here, but his two major books have been pretty firmly rejected by real scientists from everything I have seen.
To the extent Meyer has been able to garner positive critical reception, it has been an in-between nether space of media, book reviews, and unfortunately academic philosophy. I actually would go so far as to say that folks like Nagel offering positive commentary on Meyer is an indictment of Nagel and a perfect illustration of how his school of anti-reductionist skepticism can go completely off the rails.
- silent_cal 3y agoAre you implying Meyer isn't a real scientist?
- glenstein 3y agoOpenly stating. He was educated as a philosopher with a PhD in 'history of science.' His entry point to conversations on biology is from the perspective of a historian of science.
- silent_cal 3y agoHe also has a degree in physics and worked as a geophysicist for four years.. I'd say he is more educated in scientific matters than most people. Maybe including yourself?
- glenstein 3y agoFrom the google, I see that was a bachelors from 1981 to go into the private sector for work that had no connection to any scientific career. What qualifies someone as a 'scientist' can be a fuzzy continuum, but that's on the weaker side of the spectrum. Especially for someone who isn't a biologist going against the mainstream consensus of biology.
- jononomo 3y agoAnd what is your degree in?