RICHARD DAWKINS
Posted by anthonynorth on August 8, 2007
Mister Richard Dawkins is about to air a new series on UK television – ‘The Enemies of Reason’, in which he will rubbish everything New Age. Oh dear, that will upset some people. No, I’m not talking about the series – yet – but my use of ‘mister.’
I don’t mean to use it in an insulting manner, but to make a point. You see, the esteemed professor of public understanding of science is a zoologist. And in strict scientific methodology, only experts in a particular field can comment with credibility on that field.
Hence, when our good professor talks of anything other than zoology, he’s only speaking as a layman.
Not a lot of people realize that
I’ve spent many years researching the paranormal. I don’t accept any of the ‘traditional’ explanations such as spirits, etc. I don’t ridicule people who do, but it is a ‘belief’, and this cannot advance our knowledge, as such.
Yes, I know there are many fraudsters in the field, but if we use the word ‘reason’, to which Richard Dawkins is referring, is it reasonable to suggest that, if millions of people feel they have had a paranormal experience, the subject should be seriously looked at rather than ridiculed?
All in the mind?
My own view is that most paranormal experiences are ‘in the mind’, but we do not yet understand what ‘mind’ is, and how far – how communal – it can become. I won’t bore you with my theories, but if you’re interested, take a look at my Mysteries page, above, and ‘Paranormal UFO Occult’ on Blogroll.
No, the point I’m making is a simple one. In using the word ‘reason’ in the title of the series, we should remember a few words associated with it. These include ‘justification’ and ‘moderation’.
I’ll wait and see if he takes these words into account. But I won’t hold my breath.
© Anthony North, August 2007
Have you clicked Diary of a Writer on Blogroll? Meet me, up close and personal.
Click Tony On, on Blogroll, for my current affairs blog.
If you like fiction, click Fiction Page on Blogroll for my short stories.
Check out the pages. Find my Links on Eye On the World.
observantbystander said
Yes, Yes Yes Anthony! I tried The God Delusion, but it seemed so angry to me. I’m a nonbeliever in the God concept, but anger and ridicule of what others believe isn’t a good way to get your point across! “Whatever works” is what I always say. Yes, there are so many people who report paranormal experiences, which I also do not generally believe, but who am I to say what reality is or isnt’?
Again, a thoughtful and thought-inspiring post.
anthonynorth said
Hi OB,
I suppose the point is, it doesn’t matter what a person’s stance is on the paranormal. The reality remains that lots of ordinary people see things they don’t understand. It could be for a variety of reasons – a real paranormal event, a mis-identification of something, a minor psychological problem that would normally clear up. But the scientific establishment ridicules it.
So what do these people do? Keep quiet. Often they privately get frightened. Who do they turn to? There are some excellent paranormal organisations to help them, but they’re thin on the ground. Hence, they turn to no one, or to a psychic, who could well be a fake, or drag them into areas they really don’t want to go.
To me, the scorn placed on the subject by most scientists does harm in itself. And it wasn’t always like this. Let’s put it this way, you said: ‘whatever works.’ Quite true. This is the centre stone of pragmatism. The main philosopher here was William James – who was also one of the founders of the American Society for Psychical Research.
grant said
Go get ‘em, Richard.
Most people are not educated or trained to reach a sound conclusion. Richard Dawkins is. A scientist can look at the method used to reach a conclusion irregardless of the discipline and determine its validity.
You, Anthony, are a layman. Your reasoning is untrained. Just like more than 80% of the world’s population who would choose a ‘paranormal’ conclusion over a perfectly legitimate normal conclusion.
People reach false conclusions due to invalid motives, locations, data, methods, people or timing. If its ‘paranormal’ its definitely due to an abnormality in one of these areas. I deal with these issues every day as my career. I am a trained scientist in three fields.
anthonynorth said
I do love to wake up to a comment from a science-type butting his head outside his paradigm – you know, something light to get the brain cells going.
So Grant, you are trained in three fields. Well done, you. But what’s that got to do with Richard Dawkins not being? You say: ‘Go get ‘em, Richard.’ Surely that’s an unscientific comment you’d expect from us lesser imbeciles.
What is this scientific ‘method’? Now, tell me if I’m wrong. A phenomenon is identified. A speculative hypothesis is put forward. Data is collected to prove or disprove the hypothesis, which is then modified. Validation is then sought.
Now tell me, isn’t that what a nurse does, or a plumber, or how about a detective? Even better, isn’t that the process a parent goes through when deciding what a child has been up to?
Scientific method is not exclusive. What IS exclusive is knowledge in a particular field regarding what ideas have been put forward previously, and by what category ‘data’ is acceptable or not.
By this scientific ‘method’, you can only speak ’science’ concerning the subject of the paranormal if you have thoroughly studied the subject. If not, you are a layman.
Now, you have dubbed me a ‘layman’. Quite true – there isn’t much of a scientific establishment for the subject. But of course, in making this deduction, as a scientist, you have checked me out. You have read the dozens of essays on this blog on the subject by me.
No? Really, how unscientific.
As for me, I am very much a supporter of science. It plays a vital role in life. But I realise it is just part of the process of knowledge. There are other things other than science, and life is a balance – a use of commonsense – regarding these other areas. This is, to me, the sensible methodology of life.
To not use this is to move away from moderation. And that, my dear Grant, is unreasonable.
Over to you.
Robin Edgar said
Grant said, “People reach false conclusions due to invalid motives, locations, data, methods, people or timing.”
Quite right Grant. I dare say that invalid motives, invalid data, and invalid methods contribute to how Richard Dawkins reaches his invalid and indeed quite false conclusions about God and religion. . .
BTW I am not suggesting that *all* of Richard Dawkin’s conclusions about God and religion are invalid or false but a certain amount of them are.
anthonynorth said
Hi Robin,
Richard Dawkins DOES have some good ideas and he writes well, but often he goes beyond science, especially over religion and the paranormal. Scepticism is alright – if you check out my Mysteries page you’ll see I use it myself – but many science-types go beyond scepticism.
To me, there is value in the paranormal, and I don’t think it is beyond understanding. The subject needs looking at rationally. So why doesn’t science in general do this?
In one way I think they fear a return to superstition. Yet we now have science, and this will always stop such a general return. Of course, some remain superstitious, but they will be anyway, DESPITE science.
In the final analysis, what Dawkins and his kind have forgotten is that knowledge should go hand in hand with humility. It is when this is not done that knowledge becomes, not only wrong, but dangerous.
Automath said
Blimey, yet another self proclaiming guru. Would you like me to bow down before you now? Do you actually believe the dogma you judge others by? Are reason and reasonableness the same thing? Has ridicule been used for centuries as a method of providing social cohesion? Who are the ‘they’ to which you refer and demonize? Why so much dishonesty rhetoric in you thought processes? And which understanding of humility don’t you yourself adhere too?
anthonynorth said
Hi Automath,
Nice try. To me the best understanding of humility in knowledge is an ability to look at other people, other ideas, other ideals, and see if there is any understanding to be had.
From your reply, I suspect you’ve never tried it.