Comments by "Ra Ra" (@RaRa-eu9mw) on "Richard Dawkins on scientific truth, outgrowing God and life beyond Earth" video.

A man with zero credibility
5
In order to be knighted you have to contribute something to society. Dawkins hasn't really done that.
4
@TheClarko1234 Because he just hasn't. His most cited paper, on reciprocal evolution, has a little over 2,000 citations. Hardly impressive. For some quick perspective, his coauthor for that paper John Krebs had his work on foraging theory cited 8,000 times, and you've never heard of him because that's still small fry. Dawkins is an ego. His biggest contribution to society is making people aware of Richard Dawkins. He contributed nothing to philosophy and a minuscule amount to science. To give him a knighthood would make a mockery of the system.
3
@nativenouse5186 He hasn't advanced any of those things. His contributions to science have been minimal (top paper has only 2,000 citations). His contributions to reason have been worse as he has promoted a whole host of debunked ideas. Secularism? Secular philosophy is rich and dominant, and completely rejects Dawkins Boeing 747 argument. At least footballers are entertaining and don't actively promote falsehoods.
2
@adam_p99 Oh dear. What do you think Dawkins has contributed exactly? "Being an atheist" isn't contributing anything.
2
@adam_p99 I mean, Tom Clancey wrote better selling books. Selling books isn't an achievement if the books aren't very good. With regards his papers, his impact was incredibly low. His most cited paper got a little over 2,000 citations. To put this in perspective quickly, his coauthor for that paper John Krebs, had a work on foraging theory cited over 8,000 times, and you've never heard of him, because even that is still minimal. If you have ever met a scientist, chances are you've met someone who has been cited more than Dawkins. What you list of Dawkins "achievements" are really only impressive to fanboys who aren't actively engaged in science. The reality is that he contributed very very little to science, and basically nothing to philosophy (I talked with Stephen Law about this once, an actual atheist philosopher, and he said Dawkins actually held back philosophy as people were wasting their time debunking his ideas before getting on with proper stuff.)
2
@adam_p99 It's not speculative. It's the truth. If you can't deal with the truth then that's on you. Dawkins has contributed less to science than just about any other scientist. He isn't a scientist, he's an egotist.
2
I mean, Dawkins has always refused to debate philosophers or theologians (as they would utterly crush him in debate)
2
Given that Dawkins' ideas have been thoroughly debunked at this point, noting that he is also deeply immoral is the only thing left to do. He has a reputation in Oxford for manipulating young women and will likely be caught in the metoo movement soon enough.
2
@jwhipple5567 I mean, talk to the poor first years he taught at Oxford about his inappropriate behaviour around young women. It is not shameful to let the wider world know Dawkins' true character. What Dawkins himself did is the shameful thing here.
2
@stevenaustin8274 I disagree. Dawkins has been thoroughly debunked. His "reasoning," such as it is, lies in tatters. It says a lot that no contemporary academic philosopher has ever cited his ideas. No, Dawkins' intellectual reputation has been irreparably damaged, and with public knowledge of his untoward sexual behaviour, his social reputation will be too.
2
@jwhipple5567 You seem like the kind of person who doesn't believe women generally, so I'm not sure how useful going into the evidence really is.
2
@jwhipple5567 Yeah that's pretty well the kind of reply I was expecting.
2
@jwhipple5567 I wasn't attacking anyone, merely sharing my knowledge, which does seem to have upset you yes.
2
@stevenaustin8274 He's been debunked over and over by various philosophers, but sure. Here's a debunking of his boeing 747 gambit argument in just 4 words - he never defined complexity.
2
@valvlog4665 "I don't like you, you must be religious." Stay away from that, it's not rational and it won't help you find your way in the world. Dawkins has not contributed anything to atheist philosophy. In fact, actual atheist philosophers such as Austin Dacey have actively debunked his arguments, and I can't name a single atheist philosopher who draws on Dawkins. Can you?
1
@adam_p99 Fact: Dawkins has been cited fewer times than the vast majority of scientists. Nah, doesn't look like I do. Again, if you can't deal with uncomfortable facts then that's on you.
1
@adam_p99 That's literally the way that research impact is measured. Oops.
1
@adam_p99 You said he's contributed to science. Research impact is precisely the measure of a scientist's contribution, and Dawkins' research impact is next to nothing. He hasn't accomplished anything.
1
@wallyklou8848 See for instance his "boeing 747 gambit" which can be debunked in literally 4 words - he never defines complexity.
1
Which do you put Dawkins on?
1
@andybaldman So I guess the side of reason and logic? Which do you put academic philosophers on? They're all atheist and they all reject Dawkins' arguments.
1