Wil Cali start again as a newbie under new RDF forums?

[Salviati]

To state otherwise, with respect to forum content, is snobbery plain and simple. What matters, at bottom, is that valid ideas are being presented in such a manner that people realise those ideas are valid. The identity of the author, ultimately, matters not one jot, except for the proper purpose of dispensing credit where it is due for excellent work.

By this logic, there would be no point in having qualifications period. I would argue, presumably in line with you, that nowadays people tend to get too hung up on qualifications, and overlook the central importance of aptitude and personal enthusiasms. In the real world, however, none of us has the benefit of unlimited time, and inevitably filters have to be imposed.

In practice, a good chunk of the website's readership won't have the time to delve through your posts on science and get to know you personally. If they did, and if they put in the work to substantiate your factual assertions, then I believe they would find you to be reliable and competent when discussing matters of science. Nevertheless, you can't blame people for taking the easy route -- that is, passing the buck to individuals they feel come with seals of quality-assurance. Yes, it is a very imperfect system, but the alternative (dispensing altogether with formal recognition of authoritative expertise) seems even worse.

Oh, can I have a little time with respect to the material I've cited?

Sure, and thanks for being cooperative.

[Blondie]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet whether it was typed by a million monkeys or penned by a single Shakespeare? Of course.

But it the New Age of Dawk there will be no million monkeys.. no not even 80,000 of them. They'll commission a Shakespeare for a rose, a Wordsworth for a daffodil, and a Poe for comic relief. Ordered, sterile, parochial and so very baroque. Who's showing the signs of atavism now Richard?

[Blondie]

To state otherwise, with respect to forum content, is snobbery plain and simple. What matters, at bottom, is that valid ideas are being presented in such a manner that people realise those ideas are valid. The identity of the author, ultimately, matters not one jot, except for the proper purpose of dispensing credit where it is due for excellent work.

By this logic, there would be no point in having qualifications period.

No. That doesn't follow from what you've quoted at all. You've bred a curious species of red herring - part fish, part latin logical fallacy (non-sequitur was the father I assume).

To reject this silly assertion you only have to carry the question one step further.

If what matters, at bottom, is that valid ideas are being presented in such a manner that people realize those ideas are valid,

Then there is no point in having qualifications.

If there are no qualifications how are ideas determined to be valid?

Qualifications are necessary to determine validity of ideas.

Therefore if what matters, at bottom, is that valid ideas are being presented in such a manner that people realize those ideas are valid,

then qualifications are not only NOT pointless, they are wholly necessary.

Follow that? I hope so, or my opinion of your intellectual rigour just fell of the end off the scale.

[95Theses]

Indeed

Qualifications are a useful indicator prior to production, of the likely value of said product.

If for example you wished to employ someone to teach science, then qualifications are a useful indicator of the person's knowledge and ability.

However in situations like this where the product is freely available for you to accept or reject, then the qualifications of the person producing it are entirely irrelevant t the value of the piece, and in some cases might actually be detrimental as you are more likely to accept without checking the assertions of the more qualified writer.

[Salviati]

It goes without saying that qualifications have no bearing on the validity of scientific ideas. I admitted this at the outset. It's a trivial notion, which we all accept, and not worth spending time on.

My point, transparently, was that in a discussion forum, or indeed any kind of publication, there is more that matters than being right or wrong.

[lordpasternack]

Cali never cited his own scientific work - but cited and commented the work of oodles of other respected scientists, from respected journals. Who he is doesn't matter. The quality of the material he's brought to the table does.

Also, Richard credited many non-scientists and non-specialists for aiding him with research or helping him in other ways. My working hypothesis is that your hypothesis is balls, and you're once again trying to garner negative attention.

My point, transparently, was that in a discussion forum, or indeed any kind of publication, there is more that matters than being right or wrong.

It doesn't seem to bother Richard that Darwin never even got a degree...

[Salviati]

Cali didn't always provide references, and it would have been impractical for him to do so. Supplementing every assertion with an academic reference would be tedious indeed. And even if he did, do you think most readers would actually bother checking out the papers or books he cited?

[Salviati]

It doesn't seem to bother Richard that Darwin never even got a degree...

Darwin was one of the great scientists of his age. Cali is presumably not, even though his general scientific knowledge seems to me pretty solid.

If Cali can adduce some original work he has done, on even a quarter the scale of Darwin's work, then I think we would all recognize him as a bona fide expert and authority, regardless of whether or not he has a degree.

[lordpasternack]

It doesn't seem to bother Richard that Darwin never even got a degree...

Darwin was one of the great scientists of his age. Cali is presumably not, even though his general scientific knowledge seems to me pretty solid.

If Cali can adduce some original work he has done, on even a quarter the scale of Darwin's work, then I think we would all recognize him as a bona fide expert and authority, regardless of whether or not he has a degree.

Dawkins doesn't have much original scientific work. He is a science populariser more than anything else. He didn't come up with the idea of the gene-centred view of evolution, or memes, or much else...

[Salviati]

Dawkins has qualifications. If he didn't have his DPhil and various tenure positions on his CV, then he might be considered as less of a scientific authority in public forums. Exactly consistent with everything I have been saying.

Anyway, you're wrong that Dawkins didn't do original work. There's lots of originality even in The Selfish Gene. Hamilton himself admitted that Dawkins helped him to understand the idea. TSG was much more than just a popularization; this much is common knowledge.

P.S. -- Check your assertion about Dawkins not coming up with the idea of memes.

[Fact-Man]

Just to let you all know.

(snippage)

Dawkins has, in my view, condemned his website irreparably, courtesy of this supernova detonation, and the feeble pulses of the remaining neutron star will be less and less important in the world of secular affairs. Bright new stars are in the wings to replace it.

I think you're right on this.

Lots of one-time RDFers will not be inclined to return, which includes myself, and of those who do return, many/most will find th new forum rendition to be far too stiff and constraining to be of any real value. This means Dawkins will have to start essentially from scratch, or from a small cadre of one-time RDFers. If the Professor suffers any negative press on this, and I'm hard pressed to think he won't, that will curtail the flow of new members to his site, perhaps fatally.

Josh T. will be fortunate to re-launch with 350 members, an awfully long way from 85,0000, and not the stuff of community gestation, birth and maturation. It'll be a difficult uphill battle for Josh & Co., one they're unlikely to succeed at. I'd predict that within two years the new and "improved" RDF site and forum will become largely moribund.

Meanwhile, I predict this site will grow and grow and grow and after five years it will achieve a level of tens of thousands of members, and in the process gestate and give birth to a new community very similar to what we had at RDF. And it will do so I think because it will have most if not all of the features and aspects and facets and the character that made RDF grow to the heights it achieved, commraderie, colleagial sharing, well moderated yet free wheeling, user chosen debate and discussion, and a spirit that makes it home for all those atheists out there who are trapped in religious backwaters.

So yes, bright new stars are indeed in the wings, and we will make this one shine like newfound gold and it will become the living center of atheism on the web.

And Dawkins wil have to live with that on his conscience.

[johnawlock]

What matters, at bottom, is that valid ideas are being presented in such a manner that people realise those ideas are valid. The identity of the author, ultimately, matters not one jot, except for the proper purpose of dispensing credit where it is due for excellent work.

By this logic, there would be no point in having qualifications period. I would argue, presumably in line with you, that nowadays people tend to get too hung up on qualifications, and overlook the central importance of aptitude and personal enthusiasms. In the real world, however, none of us has the benefit of unlimited time, and inevitably filters have to be imposed.

I suppose it is possible in this celebrity-obsessed age that Dawkins has been leaned on by fellow diva academics looking to muscle in on his achievements (i.e RDF) but unwilling to do so anonymously rather like music hall variety acts and film stars arguing about where their name should go on the poster or all those people on TV credits, though to be fair it may be pressure from their institutional administrators to up their web presence. I have seen this done on another academic-level forum which then died as the formerly garrulous membership proved somewhat unwilling to feed the citation-crazed egos in their midst.

Going back to the thread topic... an anecdote

The BBC runs 'open-to-all' messageboard/forums associated with its SpringWatch and AutumnWatch natural history television programmes. These are gently and professionally moderated and are posted to by everyone from teenagers to retired academics, loosely based on the TV programmes. Some topics are contentious perennials - animal rights, hunting, evolution etc

Last year Calilasseia posted a loooonnng posting in his RDF style there (over 50 citations as I recall) in answer to a stereotypical 'evolution -where's the proof?' thread and it er bombed. The moderators wanted to remove it - although the reason they gave was 'copyright issues' or some such the real reason was that irrespective of the irreproachably factual nature of its content it was out of keeping on a general natural history discussion forum. Unfortunately the BBC have a search facility that has never been any better than the one currently effective on RDF so while the thread will still be there on the archived forum (why didn't RDF go down that path last week ?) it will be hard to find it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbsn/F14197738 Warning! The earliest posts are at the end.

Having read a number of C's posts in my time on RDF I felt that C.'s posting style there had become increasingly belligerent, hectoring and rhetorical and this style is not to everyone's tastes. Unfortunately there was a lot of positive feedback for it from the RDF mosh pit on which while undoubtedly gratifying should have been taken with a very hefty pinch of salt. The result was an almost a caricature performance which I don't think was in anyone's long-term interests. Hopefully in a new RDF forum there will be space for a new approach to be developed... I was casting around in my mind for a real world example of someone using C's approach and Gordon Brown (UK prime minister) fits the bill. He does the 'unbreachable wall of facts' trick very well but it only gets you so far... Another example is the Stephen Fry wall of words. If you look hard at Stephen Fry that's all he does. Switch off the sound and he's gone.

[Fact-Man]

To state otherwise, with respect to forum content, is snobbery plain and simple. What matters, at bottom, is that valid ideas are being presented in such a manner that people realise those ideas are valid. The identity of the author, ultimately, matters not one jot, except for the proper purpose of dispensing credit where it is due for excellent work.

By this logic, there would be no point in having qualifications period.

No. That doesn't follow from what you've quoted at all. You've bred a curious species of red herring - part fish, part latin logical fallacy (non-sequitur was the father I assume).

To reject this silly assertion you only have to carry the question one step further.

If what matters, at bottom, is that valid ideas are being presented in such a manner that people realize those ideas are valid,

Then there is no point in having qualifications.

If there are no qualifications how are ideas determined to be valid?

Qualifications are necessary to determine validity of ideas.

Therefore if what matters, at bottom, is that valid ideas are being presented in such a manner that people realize those ideas are valid,

then qualifications are not only NOT pointless, they are wholly necessary.

Follow that? I hope so, or my opinion of your intellectual rigour just fell of the end off the scale.

Qualifications get you in the door, but once inside, you have to perform.

[Fred Hsu]

Calilasseia, what are your scientific qualifications? Yes, it doesn't have anything to do with the content of your posts, or with whether you're right or wrong. It does have something to do with whether you can be regarded by people such as Richard Dawkins as a trustworthy scientific authority. I know a lot about science myself, but until I have acquired a PhD and achieved something in science that warrants real respect, I'm not going to be surprised if Oxford scientists give me short shrift.

Since now you seem to be peddling the rather extreme accusation that Richard didn't give you due mention in his book, yes, I would indeed like to see the details of this email correspondence.

Salviati,

I think you are erecting a straw man in an effort to distract people from the main idea that it is the "contents" that counts not "who you are". You yourself said that much, but still, you insist on identifying Cali.

Richard Dawkins had a PhD in Zoology if I am not mistaken. But does that prevent him from expounding on the intricate matters concerning genes and DNA? No, it does not. I love his books. And in fact, I've bought and given out more than 30 copies of River Out Of Eden. I am a great fan of the great man.

Now, I do not know whether his specialization in zoology at that time was in molecular biology or any other related field that would have "empowered" him to talk about DNA and genes. But this is of no importance to my appreciation of how well he writes about them.

Of course, many a times I have to defend dear professor Dawkins against attacks by people who claimed he should not open his mouth concerning anything other than taxonomy by external phoenotypes because of his "zoological degree". (And yes, I know about phylogenetics)

A label like "zoologist" is inappropriate in real life, just like "non-PhD" is inappropriate, if you really believe in your own words that it's the contents that matters.

[hackenslash]

For anybody who really wants to erect the crass assertion that only ideas presented by a PhD have any validity, I invite you to research one James Croll, former caretaker of Anderson's University (now Strathclyde University).