Thread: An Intelligent Discussion on Nature

Originally Posted by Seraphim

What I find interesting is the opening statement by the narrator that is pure "truth by blatant assertion".

He says that all scientists have nothing to do with any particular agenda, yadda, yadda..

Contrast that with the original post on this thread where a scientist discovers a fossil claiming a missing link has been discovered, and yet that claim is quickly debunked as simply an ancient form of lemur. Was the original scientist being purely objective? Was he letting the facts speak for themselves?

In an ideal world, scientists do let the facts speak for themselves. In the real world there are research grant moneys that need to be obtained, papers to be published, etc, etc. it is difficult to maintain true objectivity in an environment like that. Also it is difficult to take the human out of the equation when a human is conducting the research. By nature the scientist has a pre-concieved notion of what he/she is looking for, especially in a field such as evolutionary science.

The narrator (Richard Dawkins) didn't say "all scientists", he said "Science"; it's a pretty important distinction. He is referring to the Scientific Method, not scientists themselves.

There's no doubt that the scientist in charge of the fossil (Jorn Hurum) acted like an a$$. But remember his bias was exposed by the Scientific Method. Scientists looked at his paper and said "hang on, your data doesn't match your hype." This is an excellent example of what Dawkins said; there is no agenda. Even if one, or two or ten scientists produced baised nonsense it will get shot down when everyone takes a look at it.

The only way the system wouldn't work is if there were a giant conspirarcy: "Scientists want Evolution to be true, and they're all in on it." That's a pretty common claim from certain people.

Back in 1969 i was a junior in high school. A pleasant young woman was the teacher for my Sunday school class. She worked at the local university and was friends with one of the biology department profs. She arranged for him to come and talk to us (the Sunday school class) at her house one Saturday on the subject of evolution. News that this was to happen spread and the minister called all the parents to warn them. The event was called off.

For me this was a lesson in human nature and politics more valuable than anything the biology prof could have offered.

Originally Posted by jcd

The narrator (Richard Dawkins) didn't say "all scientists", he said "Science"; it's a pretty important distinction. He is referring to the Scientific Method, not scientists themselves.

There's no doubt that the scientist in charge of the fossil (Jorn Hurum) acted like an a$$. But remember his bias was exposed by the Scientific Method. Scientists looked at his paper and said "hang on, your data doesn't match your hype." This is an excellent example of what Dawkins said; there is no agenda. Even if one, or two or ten scientists produced baised nonsense it will get shot down when everyone takes a look at it.

The only way the system wouldn't work is if there were a giant conspirarcy: "Scientists want Evolution to be true, and they're all in on it." That's a pretty common claim from certain people.

Nice reply. You bring up some good points.

I needed this one today. I hope that in sharing it here now that it may touch someone as it touches me.

YouTube - The Pale Blue Dot - full speech