5 ms·

Pure motives? Do you imagine that all Dawkins cares about is to find the truth, regardless of what it turns out to be? The reason Dawkins is involved is because

by SiVal 12y ago

Pure motives? Do you imagine that all Dawkins cares about is to find the truth, regardless of what it turns out to be? The reason Dawkins is involved is because he can't stand EO Wilson casting doubt on the ideas for which Dawkins became famous. Pure motives in science are nice to have but aren't necessary. It shouldn't matter why a scientific argument is made as long as opponents are free to counter it. Taleb is saying that instead of just spinning verbal yarns like some social "scientists" do to disguise their political advocacy as actual science, Dawkins (who is a real scientist) needs to show where Wilson's math is either mistaken or incorrectly models the data (by, for example, abstracting away something important). If he can't or won't do so, it doesn't mean he's wrong, but it means his rebuttal is just rhetoric.

Luc 12y ago
> It shouldn't matter why a scientific argument is made as long as opponents are free to counter it. Yeah, sure thing, if we all had unlimited time and brain power to devote to these things. But I can't weigh the issues myself on their scientific merit since I don't have the background (ignoring the fact I might easily fool myself too) and I'm too old to wait 50 years for everything to get sorted out. So on the balance of things, the debate appears to be ongoing and reasonable people reasonably disagree, but I don't think I'm wrong saying that Taleb's 'contribution' to the 'scientific argument' is mainly heckling Dawkins.
- SiVal 12y ago
  Well, sure, then Dawkins can dispose of it by rebutting the math. If he can't, then this "heckling" is an actual scientific contribution.
  - Luc 12y ago
    That's so wrong I don't even know where to start. Which, I suppose, is how Dawkins feels about Taleb's 'scientific contribution'. Actual, real contributions can be made to arXiv, by anyone. Posting on Facebook that you checked the math and it's legit, though somewhat simplistic to your standards, is not a scientific contribution, it's NOISE.

by SiVal 12y ago

Luc 12y ago

> It shouldn't matter why a scientific argument is made as long as opponents are free to counter it. Yeah, sure thing, if we all had unlimited time and brain power to devote to these things. But I can't weigh the issues myself on their scientific merit since I don't have the background (ignoring the fact I might easily fool myself too) and I'm too old to wait 50 years for everything to get sorted out. So on the balance of things, the debate appears to be ongoing and reasonable people reasonably disagree, but I don't think I'm wrong saying that Taleb's 'contribution' to the 'scientific argument' is mainly heckling Dawkins.

SiVal 12y ago
Well, sure, then Dawkins can dispose of it by rebutting the math. If he can't, then this "heckling" is an actual scientific contribution.
- Luc 12y ago
  That's so wrong I don't even know where to start. Which, I suppose, is how Dawkins feels about Taleb's 'scientific contribution'. Actual, real contributions can be made to arXiv, by anyone. Posting on Facebook that you checked the math and it's legit, though somewhat simplistic to your standards, is not a scientific contribution, it's NOISE.