1. Comment #264380 by Abdi Sanati on October 14, 2008 at 10:26 am

I wish Professor Dawkins the best for the future. And I hope the retirement is only for University work and not from writing enlightening books and giving lectures.

Other Comments by Abdi Sanati

2. Comment #264385 by j.mills on October 14, 2008 at 10:28 am

Hmm. I think that article's a little overly pessimistic. Certainly I understand more about science thanks to RD (though not necessarily due to his activities in this post), and I think I am a member of the public. Even if you can't interest or educate everyone, you can still do some good.

(Who's next for the Professorship, anyone know?)

Other Comments by j.mills

3. Comment #264386 by kryptoknightmare on October 14, 2008 at 10:28 am

I don't know if Richard Dawkins, or anyone, could have reached everybody, but he did reach me.

Other Comments by kryptoknightmare

4. Comment #264389 by Dr. Hameer on October 14, 2008 at 10:33 am

I beg to disagree with the author of this article. I bet Prof. Richard Dawkins would disagree as well just like lates Carl Sagan and Stephen Gould would have disagreed.

Throughout European history Science "may" have been an Aristocratic affair, but it certainly is NOT today.

And its thanks to great scientists like Sagan, Gould and Dawkins, who have made it possible for you to meet an average John Smith with no formal training as a scientist but yet quite quite knowledgeable with matters of Science. The late Douglas Adams would be a good case in point.

A horrible article by Mr. Hammerton in my opinion as a tribute to such an eminent and magnificent Science popularizer such as Richard Dawkins!

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer

5. Comment #264395 by mcgmelo1 on October 14, 2008 at 10:40 am

As a first opinion of the above article, I would say ,


I seem not to agree with almost everything written.

Well, "public understanding" of science seems to exist, wasn´t it the "dream" of someone actually ?

To create "psychological structures" in people´s minds, and at least to make them aware of a certain subject is a huge task in itself and means that it will prevent people to loose the "skill" forever...
And just to finish, I would like to think a bit more like Aristotle: leave to pupils their own reflections about their teacher´s efforts, and if they were fruitful or not, and what time does it takes , if it takes ...


If not only about science, at least people can be more aware of actual general interest subjects as religious fundamentalism...etc. and to give more attention for subjects that seem to have been "forgotten", as a sleeping "beast".


( I will read it more carefully however)

Other Comments by mcgmelo1

6. Comment #264396 by Ishruul on October 14, 2008 at 10:41 am

Tip of the hat for Professor Dawkins. You even reached people in other continent. No one could have done it better.

Thanks for raising awareness and promoting the beauty of science.

With deep respect,
Dominic

Other Comments by Ishruul

7. Comment #264397 by Peter_on_Sax on October 14, 2008 at 10:43 am

Speaking as a member of the public, I would like to thank Prof. Dawkins for his great achievement in improving my understanding of science. If this was his remit, then he has excelled.

However, it is my sincere hope that in his new found retirement, he will continue in his eloquent and compelling promotion of rational thinking, by which my understanding of life itself has been greatly advanced.

Other Comments by Peter_on_Sax

8. Comment #264399 by testonepatella on October 14, 2008 at 10:52 am

I find it hard to agree with this pessimistic view. I have a background in history, but have always been interested in science. Richard Dawkins has certainly helped to inform my interest and, by extension, that of family and friends who might otherwise not have developed even a meagre understanding of science. His resolve to go only where reason and intelligence lead has been a service to all humanity, even if it will probably go formally unrecognized. I join others in extending my very warmest wishes in his 'retirement' to a scientist for whom I have the greatest respect.

Other Comments by testonepatella

9. Comment #264401 by Sciros on October 14, 2008 at 10:54 am

Richard often points out that a grade-school child today would be able to give Aristotle a tutorial, and even Newton, and "thrill them to their very core." Public understanding of science always lags behind "humanity's" understanding of science, but that's to be expected, especially as scientific progress becomes more and more high-level and complex.

150 years ago how many people understood evolution? Two? Ten? How many understand it now?

Professor Dawkins added to that number in no small part, I'd say.

Other Comments by Sciros

10. Comment #264402 by Glacian on October 14, 2008 at 10:56 am

I was once a Christian, and someone completely ignorant about evolution. When I was a churchgoer, about 7 years ago or so, I had the rather crazy notion, for the time, to pick up a book on evolution and learn what it was all about. After all, I told myself, how can someone reject or deny something they don't know anything about? This fit in line with the rest of my policy, which included reading the views of other religions and the views of atheists as a "challenge" to my faith. I challenged it all, and faith lost. But one of thoe most fateful moments was that moment in the Barnes and Noble. What book to pick on evolution? And there it was:

The Blind Watchmaker.

I was familiar with Paley's watch argument, and this seemed to be a play on that. I'd also heard Dawkins name here and there, and new he was a respected author. Okay, that one, then, especially since it became apparent it was an argument for evolution, and not a boring textbook. And so, on that fateful day, a Christian, ignorant of evolution, picked up a book by Mr. Dawkins. And it changed my life.

Flash forward 7 years. I'm now a college student with a year behind me of DIS work in an evolutionary psychology lab. I found evolution not only to be true, but the most fascinating idea to have ever been conceived. My understanding of science has since transformed my life, and given me direction and ambition. I have Dawkins to thank for that, so I'll testify to the success of his post.

Other Comments by Glacian

11. Comment #264404 by Mattt on October 14, 2008 at 10:56 am

I completely disagree with the article. Hammerton comes across as an elitist about science, like those academics who looked down on Carl Sagan for dumbing down their work so the proles could share in their enjoyment of it. It's an unhelpful attitude, and one that merely serves to intensify the division between academics and non-academics.

Moreover, Hammerton is simply wrong with his claim that Dawkins has failed to advance the public understanding of science. Dawkins has advanced my understanding of science. I am a member of the public. Ergo, Dawkins has advanced the public understanding of science. And I am not alone; each of the millions of readers of The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker (for example) who were lacking in a detailed knowledge of the Theory of Evolution will have had their knowledge of science advanced by Dawkins.

The strongest argument one can make against Dawkins in this respect is that he has not got through to every single member of the public, but that would be a ridiculous target, and moreover, it was not his job. His job was to advance the public understanding of science, and, overall, he has done this.

Other Comments by Mattt

12. Comment #264405 by Polaris29 on October 14, 2008 at 11:00 am

What a pathetic load of negativism and misanthropy.

Professor Dawkins improved my understanding of science far more than any teacher in any school and what is even more important he taught me to love and value all fields of science.

I guess he was appointed to his position of "professor for public understanding of science" by Charles Simonyi and I would love to hear his reflections rather than this.

Other Comments by Polaris29

13. Comment #264418 by TruthByEvidence on October 14, 2008 at 11:22 am

I can sincerely attest that due to his works of popularising science, he took someone like myself, sceptical of the world yet vulnerable to its many paths of misery and showed me how science is the most valiant, beautiful and engaging source of information available, inspiring me to spend my life within the scientific community.

I never before have respected an individual so much as him, for he had tenacity, class and dignity, yet a rebellious attitude that would not diminish his true feelings. That, to me, is the kind of person that more individuals should aspire toward.

Looking at my vintage copy of the Selfish Gene and the first edition of the God Delusion makes me realise that I must not be the only person he has inspired. I truly wish I could thank him personally for what he has done, filling the void of humanity that I could not find elsewhere.

(Also, to be a little more light hearted, I wish I had his signature! That would make me ecstatic!)

He was a human with flaws and faults, yet he had enough dignity to let the science speak through him and show the many curious hearts what makes the world turn and our minds think.

Personally, I would put him on the podium along with these other science popularisers:Albert Einstein, Richard P. Feynman and Carl Sagan. (Also, NASA's shining glory of the 1960's and pre-twentieth/twenty-first century scientists)

Richard Dawkins shall continue to inspire beyond any retirement.

I too hope for more of his works to be released.


~Daniel

Other Comments by TruthByEvidence

14. Comment #264419 by artemisa on October 14, 2008 at 11:26 am

I also want to thank Prof. Dawkins. I also want to thank all the loggers here that by their contributions make these articles easier to understand.

Other Comments by artemisa

15. Comment #264437 by SamKiddoGordon on October 14, 2008 at 12:01 pm

My last 3 book purchases have been from Richard. Never bought a hardcover book before. Hope to get through the last two soon, but RD.net is my daily fix now.
THanks.

PS. Richard has given a voice to alot of us to stand up and be counted that never had before.

Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon

16. Comment #264446 by fsm1965 on October 14, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Mainly for two reasons: most citizens have no desire to understand science and, unfashionable though it is to say so, most lack the capacity as well as the desire.

How utterly condesceneding to the general public. Most kids ARE interested in science. This is dulled by rote-learning for test and by god-bothering obscurantists. (To use a quote RD uses: "science IS interesting and anyone who doesn't think so can fuck off!").

I for one, am thoroughly pleased to live in a time where science is triumphing over ignorance, and the Prof. has done his fair share. Hopefully whoever picks up the baton will continue the good work. (And please don't put your feet up yet, Richard).

Thankyou seems such a small word for what you have done and continue to do.

Other Comments by fsm1965

17. Comment #264447 by Eshto on October 14, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Richard, the lectures you've made available on this website have woken me up out of a lifetime of sleeping and got me interested in science again. And I've already begun passing them along to my friends.

I'm also getting pretty damn good at debating the knee-jerk Dawkins haters who claim you're "just as bad as the fundamentalists". None of them have ever seen your work, they've just heard stupid rumors and slander.

As soon as I send them a link to Growing Up in the Universe, they are turned around completely.

Other Comments by Eshto

18. Comment #264450 by Awesome on October 14, 2008 at 12:23 pm

I'd actually agree with Hammerton, to an extent. For every one of us here, there are hundreds of others who can't or don't want to understand what Dawkins presents. Not even the most powerful and eloquent argument can reach someone with a deep emotional investment in the contrary.

That said, I don't think he should be using Dawkins' retirement as an opportunity to call the unwashed masses a bunch of idiots.

Other Comments by Awesome

19. Comment #264462 by Swordmaiden on October 14, 2008 at 12:47 pm

I never had an interest in basic physics or evolution before Richard Dawkins educated me. Science scared me like maths does. He has opened my eyes to the amazing things which were right in front of my nose all the time....I just didn't really see them before. I wish him a happy retirement but also hope he will continue to inspire everyday people like me to appreciate our lives. He is a great teacher and this website is a lifeline.

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

20. Comment #264464 by mdowe on October 14, 2008 at 12:55 pm

I for one am looking forward to new books Prof. Dawkins will now have more time to work on!

Other Comments by mdowe

21. Comment #264466 by Barnacle on October 14, 2008 at 12:58 pm

I hate the last line in this article - it is immensely pessimistic and I hope it is also wrong. Having said that, I do believe the rest is largely correct - as Awesome said, there are probably many more people not willing to learn as there are willing. Still, The Selfish Gene was possibly the book that inspired me most to study biology. My only complaint is that Dawkins is retiring in my second year at Oxford when he normally gives a lecture to the undergraduate biologists...

Other Comments by Barnacle

22. Comment #264468 by ridelo on October 14, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I accept that not everybody can understand science as Richard Dawkins does, but at least everybody should acknowledge the merits of science and uphold his evaluation until he knows something about it. Or else shut up.
Being humble is a Christian virtue but alas not very common among the faithful.

And, oh yes, happy retirement, Richard! You earned a little rest, but we hope it will not be too long.

Other Comments by ridelo

23. Comment #264470 by mordacious1 on October 14, 2008 at 1:06 pm

In today's world of the internet and mass publication of books on science, one would have to be putting a lot of energy in to avoiding learning more about science than previous generations. Unfortunately, in many cases, this is true. I'm talking to you, you religious people out there. On the other hand, if one desires to learn science, most information is as close as an internet connection. Since getting the internet, my understanding of science has improved immensely. Seek and you shall find.

Oh, and er...yes, Professor Dawkins has done a wonderful job at placing his vast knowledge into the minds of many. Hopefully, some others have learned HOW to speak about science from him. It's not something to hide from, it's something to enjoy.

Other Comments by mordacious1

24. Comment #264472 by JWaltman on October 14, 2008 at 1:07 pm

I too learned to enjoy science because of RD his books, his writings almost obliged me to learn more. For the first time in my life I'm excited about learning, and thinking to go back to college again. Evolutionary biology seems to be so cool!

So, thanks Richard, for making life so much more beautiful & interesting! After reading most of your books, I have to say, evolution should be thougt obligatory ad soon one enters high school, it's the cornerstone of understanding life.

Other Comments by JWaltman

25. Comment #264490 by Gruff Mckenzie on October 14, 2008 at 2:03 pm

My interest in science has been much heightened, albeit coming in from an atheist angle, by Richard Dawkins. I have just signed up to an OU course starting next month.

Thanks

Other Comments by Gruff Mckenzie

26. Comment #264492 by gazzaofbath on October 14, 2008 at 2:09 pm

First it was Stephen J Gould then Richard Dawkins books, bought for me on birthdays or Xmas as they came out, by either science-minded friends, or family and friends who knew I was a scientist - a physicist and engineer, mind you, but it sure improved my biology!

Don't think I ever had to buy one myself (sorry!) apart from The God Delusion. That one just reinforced my own views but I loved the hornet's nest it stirred up!

Retired from the chair maybe, but please don't stop writing otherwise I don't know what crap presents I'll end up getting instead.

Max Hammerton's article itself? Elitist claptrap as others have said. I suspect, but don't know, that he hasn't worked in an industrial environment or much out of a university, where you can meet 'good scientists' with a whole range of intellectual baggage, who might be considered 'thick' in other respects. And he doesn't seem to understand that education is a continuing process, from square 1 for every generation, not something that is ratchetted up (significantly) from generation to generation. As someone who has lectured to lay audiences I learnt early on to always lay the groundwork from an elementary level.

Other Comments by gazzaofbath

27. Comment #264500 by phil rimmer on October 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Hammerton...... elitist, nerd-plonker.

(Elsewhere [reviewing Penrose] he quotes Galileo with relish, "The differences between human beings in intelligence seemed greater than that between humans and other animals.")

This nerdy view of some can and some can't, misses the point by a mile.

The "understanding of science" isn't "understanding science".

Richard's work, first and foremost is to restore the reputation of science and the process by which it is done. He is not employed as some glorified science teacher.

Falsifiable hypotheses, experiment, corroborated evidence, (the only known process for reliable enlightenment) applied to all things that we take on trust from each other is the aspirational aim.

Until science and the process of reason are respected as valuable there can be no education in these things, anyway.

A society, where all (science-lover or science-hater) can at least respect a process that uniquely aspires to a universal honesty, is one to be cherished.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

28. Comment #264503 by gethinych on October 14, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Google Reader sent me to the comments to this piece before I could read it, and for the first time ever, I can't bring myself to actually do so!

I would just like to second (or 57th, or several-millionth, as it probably is) those who expressed the hope that the only thing being retired from is the University, and thank those who have confirmed that is indeed the case!

I could go on and on, but I will just say that - having been on the 'arty side' of things all my life - I started a science course a month ago, which I hope will turn into a degree, and a new scientific life. I'm not sure how much of all of that you could attribute directly to Professor Dawkins, but he was undoubtedly the catalyst - and the good thing about those, of course, is that they provoke reactions, but do not exhaust themselves in the process!...

Other Comments by gethinych

29. Comment #264506 by Dinah on October 14, 2008 at 3:18 pm

To be honest, I don't think Richard has managed to increase my understanding of science all that much. This isn't his fault - I simply don't have a scientific mind. What he has done is made me aware of the enormous importance of science and scientific understanding, and for the first time I feel ashamed of my lamentable ignorance in this field. There is no hope for me but what I can do is try to influence other people - for example, members of my family who have young children - to make sure those children receive a good grounding in science, something which I never had.

I agree with Max Hammerton in as much as science is difficult, which means children often eschew it in favour of arts-based courses in which it is easier to obtain higher grades. More good science teachers are needed to enthuse children with their love of the subject.

Ignorance of science fuels public mistrust of science and scientists - for example, fears over GM crops and the safety of vaccines. If people were more scientifically literate, would alternative medicine enjoy such uncritical acclaim?

I wish Richard well for his retirement, but I hope for all our sakes he won't stop fighting for the causes of science and of atheism for a very long time.

Other Comments by Dinah

30. Comment #264524 by Apathy personified on October 14, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Good luck to RD in whatever he does next - I hope it involves more tv programs and books purely on science though, as in my opinion Richard is at his best when he's just discussing science and the pure joy of doing and understanding science (Yes, Unweaving the Rainbow was my first experience of RD's writing).

Lack of basic scientific knowledge seems to be more of a cultural problem than a 'they aren't smart enough' problem. When newsreaders, journalists and politicians stop making jokes about how they 'can't do science or maths' and grow up, maybe the rest of society will to. \end rant.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

31. Comment #264525 by asyouwere on October 14, 2008 at 4:50 pm

I am wondering with what gauge Mr. Hammerton has measured the degree of Professor Dawkins' success. I read his article as totally undue faint praise.

I was a professional undergraduate student for seven and a half years on the GI Bill, taking every English and Philosophy course my university offered and avoiding math and science as much as possible.

On first reading the Blind Watchmaker some fifteen years ago, I realized that I was never keen on science because no one had demonstrated to me why I should have an interest. Suddenly, this was compelling and important stuff to know. Since then I have been trying to recoup my earlier dearth of understanding in these matters. The professor’s books, articles and lectures have been instrumental in my later-life learning and in the edification of others I have pointed in his direction.

Successful?
Congratulations, Richard, on your retirement and truly exemplary achievements .
Take some time off, but please remain available to the public.

Other Comments by asyouwere

32. Comment #264538 by soul_biscuit on October 14, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Science is "...an aristocratic affair, not communicable to all men, nor to most men."

Bullshit. It's communicable to anyone willing to put in the work.

Though I suspect that's part of the problem. It does take a lot of work.

Other Comments by soul_biscuit

33. Comment #264545 by Alternative Carpark on October 14, 2008 at 6:14 pm

For those who value their eyesight, some quick and dirty OCR:


The Retirement of Richard Dawkins:
Reflections on a Stewardship
By Max Hammerton

Professor Richard Dawkins has lately retired from his chair at Oxford. It is not often that a senior academic becomes a household name; and the end of his tenure seems a suitable time to reflect upon his fame and achievements.

It is likely that his unrelenting attacks upon religious belief gained him much of his publicity. I will not discuss this aspect of his activities - although I happen to agree with him in this area - but will restrict myself more narrowly to the declared object of his chair.

When he was appointed I misread his title as Professor of the public understanding of science. This I thought ironic. Since there is no public understanding of science, he - of all people- would have to seek advice from the Professors of theology, who have centuries of experience of professing the non-existent. He was in fact Professor for the public understanding of science; and I suspect that he has hardly advanced that understanding at all.

Let me say at once that I have very great respect for Prof. Dawkins. If asked to name the best attempt at a serious popularisation of science I have ever read, I might hesitate to name his Blind Watchmaker only because I have also read his Climbing Mount Improbable. He writes with lucidity and vigour; his arguments are cogent; his style is elegant; his learning is immense. His television presentations are equally polished and forceful. Why, then, do I doubt his success?

Mainly for two reasons: most citizens have no desire to understand science and, unfashionable though it is to say so, most lack the capacity as well as the desire.

The nub of the matter is simply that science is difficult. The late Prof. Medawar - another brilliant writer - once made the preposterous statement that you need not be very bright to be a good scientist. I can only wonder how often he had talked to anyone not in the top few percent of the human ability range. That great Victorian Francis Galton was nearer the mark. He advised any one who held such views to go to the best public lecture, the best presented, with the clearest demonstrations and afterwards to eavesdrop on the audience's conversations. All, he promised, would be mist and confusion. And how right he was.

What are the peaks of scientific achievement which we might hope the educated public to know about? This is a matter of opinion; but I am confident that most scientists would name, in whatever order, relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution and thermodynamics.

I defy any with, say, old-fashioned O-level maths (roughly equivalent to an A-level D today) to read Prof. Penrose's masterly Road to Reality and then put their hands on their hearts and say that they understand relativity and quantum theory. Of course, it may be said that they do not need to: neither is much demanded in daily life, although the solid-state devices in the word processer I am using now can only be understood with quantum theory. But this already marks a retreat from ambitions to enhance understanding.

Unfortunately, the argument from absence of need may not apply to the beautiful field of thermodynamics. Energy policy is very much in the public domain; and whatever may be attempted here is strictly limited by the laws of thermodynamics. How many of our legislators could give you even an elementary outline of them, or tell a Joule from a Jubjub bird? It is likely, however surprising it seems, that most M.P.s are above the mean in general abilities; so perhaps many could learn, but do they even want to?

Evolution, in contrast, is basically a simple theory, however subtle its detail may be. Further, this is Prof. Dawkins special field, to which he has made major contributions and to which he has devoted his main popularising effort. How far has he succeeded?

This is nor easy to determine. However, I note that, in his recent T.V. series on Darwin, he still found it necessary to start at square one. Comments in the press indicate that the general public still hasn't got the proverbial foggiest. University lecturers I know tell me that they have to assume that first-year students - i.e., school - leavers, most of whom have straight As at A-level - have no understanding of the matter at all.

As long as I can remember, governments have been promising to enhance the teaching of science; but for all their efforts, such as there have been, and pretences, which are loud, no progress is evident. The noble efforts of scientists like Atkins, Dawkins, Penrose, Rees and Ridley seem to have been in vain.

Of course, there is no proof that the task set by the founder of Dawkins' chair was impossible, but the evidence is consistent with such a pessimistic view. This is rather worrying in the light of the democratic hypothesis that, though not everyone can initiate a policy, all may judge it. 'Policy' today includes government strategies in science, education and energy. Not so long ago, this hardly mattered since there was a general willingness to leave science, at least, to those who actually knew something about it. Such modesty is quite out of fashion now: the pages of the national press bear this out all too clearly.

Professor Dawkins is, like myself, an admirer of the poetry of A.E. Housman. Among Housman's formidably scholarly prose works is a lecture which includes the observation that science "... is an aristocratic affair, not communicable to all men, nor to most men." Quite so.

Oxford Magazine

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

34. Comment #264553 by sornord on October 14, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Happy retirement professor...please let's hear from you again soon...

I confess I'd never heard of you until a 2005 article in Discover magazine, "Darwin's Rotweiler," but when I read that I had to know more about your writings, TV/Video presentations and have devoured them ever since. You have eloquently stated in "The God Delusion" (video and book) and other items what I have felt in my heart and mind vis a vis science and religion since I was a teenager. It has made me somewhat of a pariah at times in the eyes of my wife, parents and much of my family and friends but I still feel liberated, vindicated, enlightened and yet, as always, full of the awe and majesty from the REAL world because of it. My mind has been expanded.

"sornord"
Stephen Wilson

Other Comments by sornord

35. Comment #264558 by Anath on October 14, 2008 at 9:00 pm

I hope Dawkins personally reads every single one of these comments. If his retirement means he puts out more shows and write more books, this is great news! :D

His books are among my absolute favorite science books, right alongside Sagan, Brian Greene, Ridley, Feynman, Ekman, etc!


As far as this: "However, I note that, in his recent T.V. series on Darwin, he still found it necessary to start at square one."

No kidding! There are kids in the 6-10 and 11-14 age groups watching the show. Do you think they'd be remotely interested if it was way over their heads? They'd change the channel fast. Dawkins could easily make more advanced shows, but I highly doubt that there would be as large a viewer statistic... it'd be just us nerds and his colleagues!

Other Comments by Anath

36. Comment #264562 by secondsoprano on October 14, 2008 at 9:32 pm

science "... is an aristocratic affair, not communicable to all men, nor to most men."

As many others have said, what a load of b*llocks.

You don't have to be A Scientist to understand the principals of the scientific method, hypothesis testing, observation etc etc.

Kindergarten children can understand this.

Other Comments by secondsoprano

37. Comment #264600 by suffolkthinker on October 15, 2008 at 12:33 am

I am torn by this aricle. Part of me feels science is so obvious and beautiful that anyone can and should understand its fundamentals. Sadly another part of me agrees with the premise that in fact the standard of ability and will in the general populace is low and many will not be able to follow the arguments or more likely not even bother to try to follow them.

I used to say I could explain the maths of Special Relativity to anyone who understood Pythagoras's theorem. That is still true, but how many people randomly stopped on the street would be able to tell you what that was - and of those who had somehow managed to quote it rote from school would actually understand the maths behind it or be able to follow its proof?

We need people like Richard to keep up the great work of explaining to masses but the pessimist in me thinks all we do is make a difference to a few. Yet it's worth the effort for that few.

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

38. Comment #264614 by jdaudett on October 15, 2008 at 1:08 am

I have to disagree with Mr. Hammerton's synopsis. One of my favorite literary quotes is from the late Kurt Vonnegut Jr. He says in Cat's Cradle, "Any scientist who cannot explain to an eight-year-old what he is doing is a charlatan." Before people jump on me for that one, I would like to provide a couple of caveats to that quote. First, the level of the dialogue may need to be simplified. This already happens in grade schools. Second, the person has to want to TRY to learn. I'd say for most 8 year olds, this is the easiest part. I'd also say that this caveat is why people have a hard time explaining science, because people DON'T want to learn. They either are infernally convinced they already know or they just don't care.

Other Comments by jdaudett

39. Comment #264631 by clodhopper on October 15, 2008 at 1:55 am

"Why, then, do I doubt his success?"

Because I am an irrelevant nobody and Prof Dawkins isn't so I'm going to whinge like a 3yr old. Max Twat.

Other Comments by clodhopper

40. Comment #264635 by Steve Zara on October 15, 2008 at 2:04 am

Comment #264562 by secondsoprano

You don't have to be A Scientist to understand the principals of the scientific method, hypothesis testing, observation etc etc.

I think you do. I agree with Lewis Wolpert on this matter - the way science works is tricky to understand and counter-intutive. Our minds have not evolved to work in the cautious and rigorous way that science requires. For example, we are poor at judging probabilities and we rely too much on intuition. That is why we need things like competitive peer review, as even experienced scientists fail in this area.

I think dramatically increasing public understanding of science is not a reasonable thing to expect.

But where Richard Dawkins has succeeded wonderfully is to help increase public appreciation and awareness of science. That is a very important thing to have done.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #264639 by bujin on October 15, 2008 at 2:12 am

I cannot speak for anyone else, but before picking up The God Delusion in 2006, I hadn't a clue about the theory of evolution. I don't recall learning anything about it in school, and I had absolutely no interest in biology whatsoever - my forte (if I could call it that) was physics and astronomy.

However, reading TGD got me interested in the whole evolution vs creationism "debate", which has in turn made me appreciate the theory of evolution, and by extension, the whole universe a whole lot more.

So, on a personal level, I'd have to say that Prof. Dawkins has been a great success.

I'm currently working my way through The Ancestors Tale. So far, utterly fascinating stuff! (I even re-learned the whole point of logarithm-scale graphs this morning, having not touched them since finishing my degree over ten years ago!)

Other Comments by bujin

42. Comment #264641 by epeeist on October 15, 2008 at 2:23 am

Comment #264635 by Steve Zara

I think you do. I agree with Lewis Wolpert on this matter - the way science works is tricky to understand and counter-intutive. Our minds have not evolved to work in the cautious and rigorous way that science requires.

If you are talking about the detail, then yes you probably do.

However, the detail isn't necessary for most people and an overview is quite sufficient. Popper's formulation is too restrictive but sufficient for the layman

1. Problem
2. Raise hypotheses
3. Test the hypotheses, discarding the ones that fail the tests
4. After sufficient testing raise the surviving hypotheses to the status of theories
5. Note that the theories are provisional and if more data comes along that they cannot explain then they need to be replaced by something better, so we go round the loop again

This isn't much different to the way people work out where they put their car keys when they came home somewhat worse for wear on the previous night.

Other Comments by epeeist

43. Comment #264645 by MilitantAgnostic on October 15, 2008 at 2:33 am

I would like to make the following point. It's true to say that much of the general public are ignorant of science in general and evolution in particular. However, that doesn't mean that Dawkins et al have failed in educating the public. Quite possibly, the public would be significantly more ignorant of science is weren't for the impressive efforts of Dawkins and co in teaching the wonder of science to a wider audience. The fact that ignorance and superstition remains depressingly prevalent should not undermine the heroic endeavours of public educators of science like Professor Dawkins.

Other Comments by MilitantAgnostic

44. Comment #264649 by Steve Zara on October 15, 2008 at 2:42 am

Epeeist-

This isn't much different to the way people work out where they put their car keys when they came home somewhat worse for wear on the previous night.

Sure, but getting beyond that stage is hard. At least I think so.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #264652 by BryanEvans on October 15, 2008 at 2:47 am

I was never really interested in science as a child or even as an adult until I bought 'The God Delusion' and realised that I'd really been interested all along. As someone once said 'Minds are not empty vessles to be filled, they are fires waiting to be ignited.'

Other Comments by BryanEvans

46. Comment #264657 by n0rr1s on October 15, 2008 at 3:02 am

Spotted Richard on the front page here, this morning:
http://totallylookslike.com/
An amusing picture, I thought.

Back on topic, thanks to Richard for the many years of educating the public. I hope you'll continue to do so, despite retirement.

Other Comments by n0rr1s

47. Comment #264662 by Corylus on October 15, 2008 at 3:18 am

My views on this have pretty much been covered by others so I will keep quiet.

I will take the opportunity to wish RD a happy retirement though.

Which I hope will include many more springs (what's 67 these days!) where he takes advantage of his freedom to leave his desk... in order to go and 'see the cherry hung with snow'.

Other Comments by Corylus

48. Comment #264674 by mixmastergaz on October 15, 2008 at 3:50 am

I've clicked on the full-scan link but it doesn't seem to help; the print is too small to read and I don't know how to enlarge it. I've tried going to the 'view' drop down menu and clicking on 'largest', but it doesn't make any difference. Any tips anyone?

Naturally I'd also like to add my best wishes to Ricahrd on the occasion of his retirement.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

49. Comment #264680 by nalfeshnee on October 15, 2008 at 4:00 am

I think - as others here - that Max needs to get a thesaurus.

Sure, "understanding science" can mean the ability to grasp the niceties of, say, quantum mechanics, but it can mean - and I think, does mean, in Prof. Dawkins' case - grasping a whole lot of other points about the subject of science rather than disciplines within the field.

While I hope that Dawkins' work on evolution and its related fields has enhanced the public's literal understanding of these specific fields I doubt that the Simonyi Chair is intended to teach the public in depth about the holder of the Chair's specialism.

It is, as many posted here have said, far more about the following aspects of science:

* Why science is important (at school, in the public sphere e.g. government, foreign policy)
* How science "works" (the scientific method, terminology, theories, proofs etc.)
* Where science is going (and what we need to know to ensure it gets there)
* Why science is beautiful and worthwhile

But to be honest the Chair's "Manifesto" says it better than I can.

In Charles Simonyi's words:

The goal is for the public to appreciate the order and beauty of the abstract and natural worlds which is there, hidden, layer-upon-layer. To share the excitement and awe that scientists feel when confronting the greatest of riddles. To have empathy for the scientists who are humbled by the grandeur of it all.

(http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml)

There you have it.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

50. Comment #264682 by mcgmelo1 on October 15, 2008 at 4:03 am

Here are two quotations about the importance of " public understanding of science ", and science mustn´t be only associated with "heavy" science as physics for instance .
From where does it come the definition of humanity, from biological science or from "theological science "? From where does come the "dignity" of "humanity", from myth or from science ?
... History is science, sociology is ethical science, anthropology is basic science ... psychology is science...

Should it be secret, only available by religious rituals of initiation instead of being "public " ?


I Hope that the english of google translator is understantable:



"The science itself is innocent ...
basic science has no connotations warring
with life and with nature.
To that science is useful to companies
we need to be combined together. "


********


"The science ... have to go to the society,
the human community ...
the sciences of man are fundamental
throughout the whole body of science so that scientific progress is not too
detached from the reality of human communities
which will be applied. "

***

(Quotes from Aziz Ab'Sáber removed from listing of ISPA (Institute of Applied Psychology and Center for Intercultural Studies AZIZ AB'SÁBER)

" A ciência em si é inocente...
ciência básica não tem conotações beligerantes
com a vida e com a natureza.
Para que as ciências sejam úteis às sociedades
é preciso que estejam combinadas entre si."


********


" As ciências...têm de dirigir-se à sociedade,
à comunidade humana...
as ciências do homem são fundamentais
em todo o corpo geral das ciências, a fim de que o progresso científico não fique por demais
distanciado da realidade das comunidades humanas
às quais será aplicado."

***

( citações de Aziz Ab´Sáber retiradas de prospecto do ISPA( Instituto de Psicologia Aplicada e Centro de Estudos Interculturais AZIZ AB´SÁBER )

Other Comments by mcgmelo1