Science, Religion, And Expertise: A Double Standard?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I posted this in the Dawkins thread, but didn't get a response before it got locked, and realized that the question might support a thread on its own.

One thing that I sympathize with Richard Dawkins about is his dismay that as an evolutionary biologist who worked hard to get where he is today, he is forced to deal with people who have no background in biology (evolutionary or otherwise), ethology, paleontology, geology, or any other field that might be applicable when arguing the age of the Earth and evolution. I completely agree with him. The scientific approach is the only reasonable one to take, and one should at least have a firm background in a related field before attempting to address the subject in an informed manner.

Having stated that, I was wondering exactly where Dr. Dawkins got his education in religious studies, cultural anthropology, sociology, theology, social psychology, religious history, philosophy, or other field related to the subject of religion that allows him to discuss it as an authority on the matter?

A quick check of his CV doesn't indicate any such formal training, and yet he considers himself qualified to speak with some authority on the history of religion, the reasons that people have faith, the pluses and minuses of various religious beliefs, and the effect of religion on the world at large, as well as humanity at large.

Is this a double standard? Does science require special training to be able to have an informed opinion on scientific subjects, while religion is a subject that anyone can become an expert on without formal training?

Me, I think that he's being an enormous hypocrite by constantly opining on "religion" as some sort of monolithic entity while simultaneously sneering at others for questioning his field of study, but maybe I'm missing something.

Anyone?

[Kumuri]

I think the idea of excluding everyone who doesn't have some prestigious university degree from discussions is horribly elitist. Not to mention the fact that not everyone can put in such devotion to a field, but they might be concerned about a subject. Should we not listen at all to them?

Before it comes up, I'll say that I don't think anyone should come into a discussion aiming to assert some sort of authority. Of course someone who knows more about the field is more likely to be right about that field, but that doesn't mean we should completely dismiss any claims the less-educated person is making.

Of course, I also think we all should enter debate prepared to occasionally be wrong about things and be ready to correct ourselves regardless of our authority or education level.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Science does not necessarily need special training. But some critics of science don't seem to be much interested in actually DOING science. If one isn't willing to test their own claims, then I don't see why anyone( least of all scientists who DO test their own claims) should take those people seriously.

Regardless of experience, education or training, why should the opinions of those that do no science carry the same weight as the opinions of those that do?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I think the idea of excluding everyone who doesn't have some prestigious university degree from discussions is horribly elitist. Not to mention the fact that not everyone can put in such devotion to a field, but they might be concerned about a subject. Should we not listen at all to them?

Before it comes up, I'll say that I don't think anyone should come into a discussion aiming to assert some sort of authority. Of course someone who knows more about the field is more likely to be right about that field, but that doesn't mean we should completely dismiss any claims the less-educated person is making.

Of course, I also think we all should enter debate prepared to occasionally be wrong about things and be ready to correct ourselves regardless of our authority or education level.

It's not a matter of excluding everyone who doesn't have a prestigious university degree from the discussion. It's excluding people from some discussions (such as evolution) that he has expertise in, but then engaging in authoritative statements regarding a subject that he has a layman's knowledge of at best. Do you see the double standard here?

I mean, I'll talk about evolution (actually, I won't, because there is nothing so simultaneously infuriating and dull as a YEC yammering the same old nonsense), and I'll talk about religion, but I don't claim expertise in either area. He, on the other hand, will make claims about religion with the same confidence and air of finality that he does about evolutionary matters, and yet he has no background in the first area while he has extensive experience in the other.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Science does not necessarily need special training. But some critics of science don't seem to be much interested in actually DOING science. If one isn't willing to test their own claims, then I don't see why anyone( least of all scientists who DO test their own claims) should take those people seriously.

Regardless of experience, education or training, why should the opinions of those that do no science carry the same weight as the opinions of those that do?

I'm not saying that they do.

I'm questioning why he feels qualified to make authoritative statements regarding religion while complaining about amateurs making authoritative statements on evolution.

[Kumuri]

Regardless of experience, education or training, why should the opinions of those that do no science carry the same weight as the opinions of those that do?

We should just evaluate the opinions for what they are, and if they're wrong, then they're wrong. The person putting them forth isn't what should matter, but the opinion itself.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Science does not necessarily need special training. But some critics of science don't seem to be much interested in actually DOING science. If one isn't willing to test their own claims, then I don't see why anyone( least of all scientists who DO test their own claims) should take those people seriously.

Regardless of experience, education or training, why should the opinions of those that do no science carry the same weight as the opinions of those that do?

I'm not saying that they do.

I'm questioning why he feels qualified to make authoritative statements regarding religion while complaining about amateurs making authoritative statements on evolution.

Because unlike science, religion requires no testing.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Regardless of experience, education or training, why should the opinions of those that do no science carry the same weight as the opinions of those that do?

We should just evaluate the opinions for what they are, and if they're wrong, then they're wrong. The person putting them forth isn't what should matter, but the opinion itself.

Science is not just opinion though.

[Kumuri]

It's not a matter of excluding everyone who doesn't have a prestigious university degree from the discussion. It's excluding people from some discussions (such as evolution) that he has expertise in, but then engaging in authoritative statements regarding a subject that he has a layman's knowledge of at best. Do you see the double standard here?

I mean, I'll talk about evolution (actually, I won't, because there is nothing so simultaneously infuriating and dull as a YEC yammering the same old nonsense), and I'll talk about religion, but I don't claim expertise in either area. He, on the other hand, will make claims about religion with the same confidence and air of finality that he does about evolutionary matters, and yet he has no background in the first area while he has extensive experience in the other.

K, I had the feeling what I was addressing wasn't exactly the same thing, but I felt it needed to be said.

Anyway, I do see the double standard, and it is a very silly double standard, as all double standards are.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Let me elaborate on my last comments:

Take Christianity as an example of a religion. There's only one book to study. Assuming you've studied it, you are at least as qualified as anybody else who studied that one book.

[Stormwrath]

Just because you are well educated in the realm of science doesn't make you any less stupid than one who is a devout follower of a certain religion.

[Keyboard Warriors]

I don't profess to be Richard Dawkins, but dealing frequently with the opinions of people regarding subjects that they are completely unqualified to talk about is indeed extremely frustrating. Yet, it's not the lack of a degree which irritates me, it's the complete ignorance for a huge portion of the factors which could be attributed this subject. I think a lot of people tend to manifest the lack of knowledge in a lack of a degree, but it's a false attribution seeing as one could have the knowledge without a degree and there's been plenty of people to somehow steal a degree because they certainly didn't deserve it. Personally, I'm happy to talk to people without a degree, but only on the condition that they know the full story of what they're talking about. Otherwise, I think it's perfectly valid to shut them out.

I think the hypocrisy might stem from the fact that science degrees are much more common than religious degrees, not to mention that non-scientific degrees are often regarded as not being real degrees. Bluntly, degree or no degree shouldn't matter, provided the person in question knows what they are talking about.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm not saying that they do.

I'm questioning why he feels qualified to make authoritative statements regarding religion while complaining about amateurs making authoritative statements on evolution.

Because unlike science, religion requires no testing.

True, but testing is not all that makes up a field of study. There are literally thousands of years worth of religious beliefs out there, with differing perspectives, philosophies, apologetics, insights, interpretations, and "revelations" within each one. Christianity itself encompasses such diverse viewpoints as those of Jerry Falwell, the early communal Christian communities, Liberation Theologians, Torquemada, Al Sharpton, the early polygamist Mormons, and Pope Francis...and that's an infinitesimal amount. There is an enormous history, with reams upon reams of insights, and billions who have attempted to use religion as a tool to come to some understanding of the universe and their place in it. There is a mystery to life, and while the logical positivism approach has its merits, others find it lacking in deeper meaning, or insufficient to address larger questions.

Could Dr. Dawkins give a rundown on how the Arian schismatics saw God in comparison to their contemporaries? How about the Transcendentalists? The modern Unitarians? Quakers? Does he know what they believe? Why they believe it? Does he think that it's all based in fear and judgement? Does he know that there are entire fields of study devoted to studying religious belief objectively?

Or does he simply sneer "It's all woo," and dismiss it with a wave of his hand?

And if so, what educational background does he have to dismiss the very real work and study of others--including some atheists--into the nature of religion and religious belief?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Let me elaborate on my last comments:

Take Christianity as an example of a religion. There's only one book to study. Assuming you've studied it, you are at least as qualified as anybody else who studied that one book.

That's completely untrue, unless you believe that sola scriptura is the only legitimate approach to Christianity, which is an argument that I've only heard made by two groups:

1) Religious zealots.
2) Atheists.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Because unlike science, religion requires no testing.

True, but testing is not all that makes up a field of study. There are literally thousands of years worth of religious beliefs out there, with differing perspectives, philosophies, apologetics, insights, interpretations, and "revelations" within each one. Christianity itself encompasses such diverse viewpoints as those of Jerry Falwell, the early communal Christian communities, Liberation Theologians, Torquemada, Al Sharpton, the early polygamist Mormons, and Pope Francis...and that's an infinitesimal amount. There is an enormous history, with reams upon reams of insights, and billions who have attempted to use religion as a tool to come to some understanding of the universe and their place in it. There is a mystery to life, and while the logical positivism approach has its merits, others find it lacking in deeper meaning, or insufficient to address larger questions.

Could Dr. Dawkins give a rundown on how the Arian schismatics saw God in comparison to their contemporaries? How about the Transcendentalists? The modern Unitarians? Quakers? Does he know what they believe? Why they believe it? Does he think that it's all based in fear and judgement? Does he know that there are entire fields of study devoted to studying religious belief objectively?

Or does he simply sneer "It's all woo," and dismiss it with a wave of his hand?

And if so, what educational background does he have to dismiss the very real work and study of others--including some atheists--into the nature of religion and religious belief?

As a scientist, he wouldn't need an educational backing; merely a willingness to test his hypothesis. If he thinks all religion is hokum, then he should be willing to test that.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I don't profess to be Richard Dawkins, but dealing frequently with the opinions of people regarding subjects that they are completely unqualified to talk about is indeed extremely frustrating. Yet, it's not the lack of a degree which irritates me, it's the complete ignorance for a huge portion of the factors which could be attributed this subject. I think a lot of people tend to manifest the lack of knowledge in a lack of a degree, but it's a false attribution seeing as one could have the knowledge without a degree and there's been plenty of people to somehow steal a degree because they certainly didn't deserve it. Personally, I'm happy to talk to people without a degree, but only on the condition that they know the full story of what they're talking about. Otherwise, I think it's perfectly valid to shut them out.

I think the hypocrisy might stem from the fact that science degrees are much more common than religious degrees, not to mention that non-scientific degrees are often regarded as not being real degrees. Bluntly, degree or no degree shouldn't matter, provided the person in question knows what they are talking about.

That's fair, in which case I would argue that he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, or rather, what he does understand he seems to understand only superficially.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

True, but testing is not all that makes up a field of study. There are literally thousands of years worth of religious beliefs out there, with differing perspectives, philosophies, apologetics, insights, interpretations, and "revelations" within each one. Christianity itself encompasses such diverse viewpoints as those of Jerry Falwell, the early communal Christian communities, Liberation Theologians, Torquemada, Al Sharpton, the early polygamist Mormons, and Pope Francis...and that's an infinitesimal amount. There is an enormous history, with reams upon reams of insights, and billions who have attempted to use religion as a tool to come to some understanding of the universe and their place in it. There is a mystery to life, and while the logical positivism approach has its merits, others find it lacking in deeper meaning, or insufficient to address larger questions.

Could Dr. Dawkins give a rundown on how the Arian schismatics saw God in comparison to their contemporaries? How about the Transcendentalists? The modern Unitarians? Quakers? Does he know what they believe? Why they believe it? Does he think that it's all based in fear and judgement? Does he know that there are entire fields of study devoted to studying religious belief objectively?

Or does he simply sneer "It's all woo," and dismiss it with a wave of his hand?

And if so, what educational background does he have to dismiss the very real work and study of others--including some atheists--into the nature of religion and religious belief?

As a scientist, he wouldn't need an educational backing; merely a willingness to test his hypothesis. If he thinks all religion is hokum, then he should be willing to test that.

That's like judging a painting based upon the chemical composition of the paint and canvas.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Let me elaborate on my last comments:

Take Christianity as an example of a religion. There's only one book to study. Assuming you've studied it, you are at least as qualified as anybody else who studied that one book.

That's completely untrue, unless you believe that sola scriptura is the only legitimate approach to Christianity, which is an argument that I've only heard made by two groups:

1) Religious zealots.
2) Atheists.

As a Christian, I personally am a less than sola scriptura. I don't even accept the whole Bible.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's completely untrue, unless you believe that sola scriptura is the only legitimate approach to Christianity, which is an argument that I've only heard made by two groups:

1) Religious zealots.
2) Atheists.

As a Christian, I personally am a less than sola scriptura. I don't even accept the whole Bible.

Heh. As a non-Christian theist, I accept just a bit less than you do.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

As a scientist, he wouldn't need an educational backing; merely a willingness to test his hypothesis. If he thinks all religion is hokum, then he should be willing to test that.

That's like judging a painting based upon the chemical composition of the paint and canvas.

Is it? I think it's more like jumping off a cliff to prove that people can't levitate.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's like judging a painting based upon the chemical composition of the paint and canvas.

Is it? I think it's more like jumping off a cliff to prove that people can't levitate.

*Thinks*

No, I like mine better.

[Sociobiology]

Science does not necessarily need special training. But some critics of science don't seem to be much interested in actually DOING science. If one isn't willing to test their own claims, then I don't see why anyone( least of all scientists who DO test their own claims) should take those people seriously.

Regardless of experience, education or training, why should the opinions of those that do no science carry the same weight as the opinions of those that do?

I'm not saying that they do.

I'm questioning why he feels qualified to make authoritative statements regarding religion while complaining about amateurs making authoritative statements on evolution.

because he doesn't make authoritative statements, he makes arguments backed by evidence.
anyone can do that, the problem with the people Dawkin's is dealing with is they never understand the evidence, and make the same false claims over and over, scientists do research first to reduce the chances of repeating past follies. That is a huge part of that training you need for the degree.

[The Lotophagi]

I think it has a bit to do with the slightly patronizing air that people in the natural sciences tend to take towards people in the humanities and social sciences. Most natural scientists have precious little actual education in the humanities, let alone about things like historiography or theology or even sociology, and in the face of a wall of complex jargon and information they don't understand it's tempting for people in the natural sciences to react defensively, making broad sweeping statements in the guise of cutting through all the obfuscation. They think this is perfectly fine because of a common impression that all humanities and social science work is more or less relative and falls within distinct ideological camps, making them think that their attempt is a bright beacon of empiricism shining through into the morass.

See for example the recent case of a bunch of computer scientists and mathematicians who published a paper analyzing the 'social networks' in famous pieces of mythological literature like the Illiad or Beowulf, and based upon how 'real' those social networks looked (ie how closely they approximated social networks in the real world) they concluded about whether or not the piece was actually based upon real events and people. No real attempt was made to look at the work historians have done on any of the works, and the mathematicians and computer scientists involved really didn't find out anything new at all - at best, they were reinventing the wheel. At worst, they were wasting time and money making incorrect conclusions using work that any historian worth their salt would find completely shoddy.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm not saying that they do.

I'm questioning why he feels qualified to make authoritative statements regarding religion while complaining about amateurs making authoritative statements on evolution.

because he doesn't make authoritative statements, he makes arguments backed by evidence.
anyone can do that, the problem with the people Dawkin's is dealing with is they never understand the evidence, and make the same false claims over and over, scientists do research first to reduce the chances of repeating past follies. That is a huge part of that training you need for the degree.

What arguments backed by evidence is he making?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I think it has a bit to do with the slightly patronizing air that people in the natural sciences tend to take towards people in the humanities and social sciences. Most natural scientists have precious little actual education in the humanities, let alone about things like historiography or theology or even sociology, and in the face of a wall of complex jargon and information they don't understand it's tempting for people in the natural sciences to react defensively, making broad sweeping statements in the guise of cutting through all the obfuscation. They think this is perfectly fine because of a common impression that all humanities and social science work is more or less relative and falls within distinct ideological camps, making them think that their attempt is a bright beacon of empiricism shining through into the morass.

See for example the recent case of a bunch of computer scientists and mathematicians who published a paper analyzing the 'social networks' in famous pieces of mythological literature like the Illiad or Beowulf, and based upon how 'real' those social networks looked (ie how closely they approximated social networks in the real world) they concluded about whether or not the piece was actually based upon real events and people. No real attempt was made to look at the work historians have done on any of the works, and the mathematicians and computer scientists involved really didn't find out anything new at all - at best, they were reinventing the wheel. At worst, they were wasting time and money making incorrect conclusions using work that any historian worth their salt would find completely shoddy.

I suspect that the nail may have been struck most firmly on the head, here.