LB said: What *can* Fanaticism® be mixed with? Besides Science®, that is.
I'm struggling to conceive of what 'fundamentalist science' would mean.... Somehow I don't think that would work. If a scientist thinks that s/he is beyond error (or whatever) then they're not much of a scientist.
I can't think of any fundamentalism that could be a good thing... but then again it's late and I'm pretty tired.....
TF said: thankfully I haven't heard fo any wars breaking out at sci-fi conventions.
Just imagine Star Wars Vs Star Trek... *That* could get pretty nasty!
We're talking about Fanaticism® not Fundamentalism®. That's a different drug from the same manufacturer. For an example of how it exhibits in scientists, read "The God Delusion".
All due respect, but in comparison with the spiral-eyed fervor of the religious zealot, there is no thing analogous to fanaticism in science.
Dawkins--with whom I agree on every particular--is a hard-liner, but he reaches the point simply enough: he rejects the supernatural and finds it harmful. He believes what he has reason to believe, in the proportion supported by evidence. Everything stems from this.
The God Delusion is his least compelling work, I think; the study of the elegant wonder of evolution makes the same case very well.
LB said: We're talking about Fanaticism® not Fundamentalism®.
So we are - but they're *so* similar my mind just made the logical connection....
LB said: For an example of how it exhibits in scientists, read "The God Delusion".
Oh, I wouldn't call Dawkins a Fanatic - at least not a *Fanatic* scientist though he's certainly a dedicated one. The best example I can think of for a fanatic scientist is probably Dr Frankenstein - which is hardly a *good* example of any scientist. Fanaticism really doesn't work within the scientific perspective. Scientists should at least aim at being objective and open to criticism - something that fanaticism doesn't really allow for.
With regard to his book 'The God Delusion' it is - as Wunelle said - his *least* compelling work (and to be honest I found it rather boring). He obviously feels passionately about the issue but its clearly not really his field and is certainly not science - which is most definitely his strong point.
Wunelle said: All due respect, but in comparison with the spiral-eyed fervor of the religious zealot, there is no thing analogous to fanaticism in science.
I can't think of anything.... Maybe LB can?
wunelle said: The God Delusion is his least compelling work, I think; the study of the elegant wonder of evolution makes the same case very well.
Most definitely. His evolutionary works are outstanding.
TF said: once again, Robot Chicken proves to be oracular.
Cartoon Time.
11 comments:
What *can* Fanaticism® be mixed with? Besides Science®, that is.
That's my deletion...typo.
Unfortunately, I think almost anything.
though thankfully I haven't heard fo any wars breaking out at sci-fi conventions.
LB said: What *can* Fanaticism® be mixed with? Besides Science®, that is.
I'm struggling to conceive of what 'fundamentalist science' would mean.... Somehow I don't think that would work. If a scientist thinks that s/he is beyond error (or whatever) then they're not much of a scientist.
I can't think of any fundamentalism that could be a good thing... but then again it's late and I'm pretty tired.....
TF said: thankfully I haven't heard fo any wars breaking out at sci-fi conventions.
Just imagine Star Wars Vs Star Trek... *That* could get pretty nasty!
We're talking about Fanaticism® not Fundamentalism®. That's a different drug from the same manufacturer. For an example of how it exhibits in scientists, read "The God Delusion".
Brilliant cartoon!
All due respect, but in comparison with the spiral-eyed fervor of the religious zealot, there is no thing analogous to fanaticism in science.
Dawkins--with whom I agree on every particular--is a hard-liner, but he reaches the point simply enough: he rejects the supernatural and finds it harmful. He believes what he has reason to believe, in the proportion supported by evidence. Everything stems from this.
The God Delusion is his least compelling work, I think; the study of the elegant wonder of evolution makes the same case very well.
@CK: robot chicken did a sketch about a battle breaking out amongst th e nerds at a sci-fi convention.
once again, Robot Chicken proves to be oracular.
LB said: We're talking about Fanaticism® not Fundamentalism®.
So we are - but they're *so* similar my mind just made the logical connection....
LB said: For an example of how it exhibits in scientists, read "The God Delusion".
Oh, I wouldn't call Dawkins a Fanatic - at least not a *Fanatic* scientist though he's certainly a dedicated one. The best example I can think of for a fanatic scientist is probably Dr Frankenstein - which is hardly a *good* example of any scientist. Fanaticism really doesn't work within the scientific perspective. Scientists should at least aim at being objective and open to criticism - something that fanaticism doesn't really allow for.
With regard to his book 'The God Delusion' it is - as Wunelle said - his *least* compelling work (and to be honest I found it rather boring). He obviously feels passionately about the issue but its clearly not really his field and is certainly not science - which is most definitely his strong point.
Wunelle said: All due respect, but in comparison with the spiral-eyed fervor of the religious zealot, there is no thing analogous to fanaticism in science.
I can't think of anything.... Maybe LB can?
wunelle said: The God Delusion is his least compelling work, I think; the study of the elegant wonder of evolution makes the same case very well.
Most definitely. His evolutionary works are outstanding.
TF said: once again, Robot Chicken proves to be oracular.
[laughs]
BTW - Why do you keep changing your name.....?
Dawkins isn't a fanatic, but Hitchens is. And a frightening one at that.
"BTW - Why do you keep changing your name.....?"
well it keeps geting dirty, you know.
I'd love to post this on my office door if I didn't think some nut extremist would see it and go over the edge.
Post a Comment