Yes, but that's question begging. The suggestion, I think, is that Dawkins is betraying his commitment to rationality by not updating his beliefs. My view is that's not true if he doesn't consider the evidence to be persuasive (even if he's actually wrong about that).
-
Yesbut Dawkins is just complaining about the *label*; there's no reason to think he'd recognize Lacan if he hit him over the head with a two-by-four. And labels referring to geographic regions appear in the hard sciences as well, as D should know by nowhttps://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/334656775196393473 …
By the way, this sort of thing works both ways. I sat in a Joint Session session, where a bunch of philosophers were *literally* laughing at the notion of genetic determination, & it was obvious the vast majority had no idea how that language tends to be used by biologists, etc.
-
-
Oh I know. This is one of the things I work on.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.