At the risk of agreeing with Cisco, let me get something off my chest.
Dawkins is a fraud (in his science-warrior incarnation) . Any video of Dawkins (as the avatar for his own ‘science’s’ war again religion), has no place in a discussion of science. However, apparently a discussion about why that is, does belong here. hahaa
The scientific method works by inductive reasoning. Thus, nothing in science can be held as absolute truth. If something is not supported by evidence, the scientific method does not give you license to put forth the inverse (negative assertion) as a hypothesis. This is because the assertion (negative or otherwise) is not supported by evidence and, of course, if such action is permissible, the scientific method disintegrates. There is no action in the name of science that can be taken in such case. The only thing science can do is to ignore it until it becomes scientifically relevant. Things that arent supported by evidence dont get to be shot down by science, they just get to be ignored. This is not a subtle nuance (though it can seem subtle due to the language often used). This gets at the heart of the scientific method. Listening to Dawkins in the interview, it is apparent (from his contradictions) that he is aware of this. Which doesnt make it any better. Stewart was on to something when he asked “…isnt it the job of a scientist to…”. He was getting at what it means to think like a classical scientist; which is to be open-minded and skeptical (the ‘skeptical’ part is redundant since an honestly open-minded person must be skeptical). He was challenging Dawkins’ brand of skepticism.
The reason for Dawkins’ crusade, is a backlash against religion. He did not hide his disdain for religion in that he sees such faith as the antithesis of science. He views the proliferation of religion as placing science as an institution in jeopardy (I believe religion is scapegoated for a lot of evils in the world, but this is besides the point). So in using science as a weapon, he will try to bash back the remaining vestiges of faith-based philosophy (when you are a hammer, everything you see must be a nail). By doing this in the name of science, he is recruiting popular opinion towards viewing science as a philosophy that is able to make [negative] determinations via a lack of evidence. This expansion of traditional science, is in direct opposition to its philosophical underpinning. And only leads to a misunderstanding of the scientific method, especially when he accepts being an avatar for scientific superiority. He accepts the role happily, because it is his bread and butter. Not because he is a champion of science. He champions its demise apparently.
As opposed to scientists (who are like all humans, choosing to believe or not to believe in a spectrum of possibilities based on available evidence), the scientific method is never wrong, as Dawkins agreed incorrectly to with Stewart (who was probably referencing Mario Livio-who commented on the human element). Inductive reasoning is safe-guarded from being wrong by its limitations regarding the assignment of truth, in fact this is its main philosophical criticism (Dawkins also apparently laments this limitation). However, the need to assign truth to things is a human impulse and is driven specifically by faith. Because of this, scientists (rather than science itself) are often wrong - with typical human flaws that lead to bias in analysis (this wraps back to the subject of indoctrination of popculture: Occham’s razor is often touted as a scientific principle despite being quite the opposite).
If you claim my issue lies in semantics let me mention my favorite part of the interview. Towards the end when Stewart got Dawkins to admit belief in something based on zero evidence: When he admitted that he believed in the existence of life on other planets and that even a billion other planets supporting life is a small estimate. On what is he basing his belief that such an event is highly likely? It certainly is not evidence. It is faith. Faith in what? Perhaps faith that this would shut up (or fan the flames of) religious people who think that God created them uniquely in his image (such as would be comforting to him). Dawkins wants to sit them on his science sword. He tempered the claim by admitting he could be wrong, but have you ever cornered a religious person and pinned them down on the existence of the possibility that they are wrong? Similar to Dawkins, they usually acknowledge it. So is it semantics? Is it I who is relying on semantics, or is it Dawkins? Who is the one selling merchandise on TV and to SRK members at the expense of what he claims to protect?
Dawkins’ crusade is prob not a winning battle. The fight of the religious vs the scientists is nothing new and will probably endure until the two meet somewhere in the middle in infinity. Dawkins is simply a new salesman inhabiting an old role. The history of the theory of the big bang gives some insight. The theory was put forth by a Belgian priest/astronomer/professor. The theory was lambasted by the scientific community as a creation story based on faith. In fact, the ‘big bang’ moniker was coined as a pejorative. Fast forward to today, and what do we have? The battle lines are still drawn, but the combatants have switched places. It is nothing more than punditry. This is Dawkins’ legacy.
no?