The debate "Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye are not actual scientists." was started by
June 30, 2018, 9:00 am.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
DRJ, luljeta101 and 8 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, Andji, SMNR, Whistlepigs and 5 visitors disagree.
science studies are boring as hell. I'm familiar with much of the lingo, but still cant get past the abstract summary.
they have to go detailing all the past similar studies they looked up, all their methods, some margin of error math, the construction of their experiment, variables, etc. it's almost all background and little meat. its very much not fun. the media and most of the mainstream usually ignores them.
that's why science educators like bill Nye (or more qualified ones like Neil degrass or braine greene) are important to bring the science down to normal english and skip the beauracratic professional necessities.
Ah, I never could find any of his work besides two books and a hell of a lot of debating.
sorry about the multi post. I wanted to copy paste some of the studies but this app sucks sometimes.
the last study he did that wasnt commentary looks like 1992, with the 2 after that being questionable as I have no idea what those titles mean. but before that its mostly research that has nothing to do with theism or creation. 1992 may not be recent but his first paper was all the way back in 1969, which leaves him with a substantial scientific career.
seems like creationist debating is his retirement pasttime.
he also invented the modern usage of a meme and argued frequently with other scientists on the evolution of altruism.
with many politicians pushing for the inclusion of creationism in science class, fighting creationism (as a science) is an important task. it does appear to be his main focus atm, but he did do plenty of published research throughout his career.
Richard Dawkins is an active atheist. He makes this clear. It's not because he's an atheist or anything personal it's the fact that he doesn't really do anything besides debating creationists all the time. He even wrote a book specifically about God not existing (never read it. I probably will). He's wasting all of his talent doing absolutely nothing.
He hasn't really contributed anything to "science". He's known for his debating. Debating creationists, as you already know, gets you nowhere. This is why I don't believe he fits into the category of "scientist".
agreed, and with that definition bill nye is not a scientist. checking his wiki, he was an engineer by trade and actually invented something for Boeing. later he became a science educator, teaching what has been already discovered but not conducting any new research.
how does Dawkins not fit into the definition tho? Is it the atheist activism that doesnt fit? if a scientists who does research does nonscientific activism after work, isnt he still a scientist?
Someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.
what criteria do you believe determines whether someone is a scientist or not?