tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post2805076136283261019..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: More science and religion kerfuffle - Nisbet tells Dawkins and Myers to shut upRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54868300084947629452008-03-26T00:19:00.000+11:002008-03-26T00:19:00.000+11:00I don't think that religion in itself is evil, and...I don't think that religion in itself is evil, and I have a vague enough idea from reading how it may have developed. It is turning into an opportunity cost at this point, and we can see through this how attitudes towards religion divide rather than unite people. I think people who should know better grant too much allowance towards religion, acceding to its claims.<BR/><BR/>Given all that, you are right that it will probably never go away and we do need to live with it. We just don't need to accommodate to its worst offenses, and that means weakening the speaking of science to avoid offending certain sensibilities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-77804682290399894432008-03-25T14:12:00.000+11:002008-03-25T14:12:00.000+11:00Yes, I'm afraid that Nisbet has really disgraced h...Yes, I'm afraid that Nisbet has really disgraced himself over this.<BR/><BR/>I'm all for framing issues in the interests of communication. With this in mind Dawkins himself acknowledges that he is not the best spokesperson for science in some situations. He acknowledges he would not have been as effective as Ken Miller as an expert witness in the Dover trial, for example.<BR/><BR/>Given that, he is still extremely effective in other arenas. Especially in consciousness raising about science and about atheism.<BR/><BR/>We need people with different approaches, and specialties, to cover the spectrum of situations. We need people like Dawkins and Myers - just as we need people like Miller and Scott.<BR/><BR/>Instead of recognising this Nisbet is telling Myers and Dawkins, both very effective popularisers and educators, to shut up!<BR/><BR/>If he were assessing the situation properly he should be telling the people he considers to be more appropriate to the creationist or creationist-tending audience to speak up!<BR/><BR/>By reacting in such an inappropriate manner Nisbet is giving up on what may have been an appropriate message about framing.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps we need someone who can frame the issues more appropriately than Nisbet to talk about communication of science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-63106503002603176472008-03-25T06:57:00.000+11:002008-03-25T06:57:00.000+11:00"Nonetheless, for all of that, the various religio..."Nonetheless, for all of that, the various religions are - more often than not I'm afraid to say - cults of misery that need to be opposed."<BR/><BR/>well said. Good article overall, too. I'm afraid that Dawkins and Myers' approach to tackling religion is somewhat unlikely to succeed, but I admire their courage. <BR/><BR/>I also think that Nisbet is mistaken when he says that something is "really bad for science". Science is of instrumental value in such an extreme way that no level of religious retardery will be able to get rid of it.Rokohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01607601948311473359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73304404565653361302008-03-25T03:31:00.000+11:002008-03-25T03:31:00.000+11:00This might have some short-term benefits, I suppos...<I>This might have some short-term benefits, I suppose, though I can see many problems with it.</I><BR/><BR/>Short-term solutions lead, at best, to short-term improvements.Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-69539881368771661592008-03-24T21:22:00.000+11:002008-03-24T21:22:00.000+11:00Well said Russell. Incidentally, there is one iss...Well said Russell. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, there is one issue that Nisbet does not seem to consider.<BR/><BR/>Don’t people who have been misrepresented and lied to have the right to express irritation and call others out for dishonesty? <BR/><BR/>That would still be the case even if the film were about debate in the fields of campanology, origami or competitive carrot growing. <BR/><BR/>There is a principle at stake here that is in danger of getting buried under the debate about ‘framing’.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com