Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 145 posts

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#31

Post by lutorm »

jmillikin wrote: post #20

Even if a doctor's belief in the stork theory of reproduction is technically irrelevant to his competence as an eye surgeon, it tells you something about him. It is revealing. It is relevant in a general way to whether we would wish him to treat us or teach us. A patient could reasonably shrink from entrusting her eyes to a doctor whose beliefs (admittedly in the apparently unrelated field of obstetrics) are so catac…

It's not so much the beliefs that people hold, it's whether or not they stick to those beliefs in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. If they do, then their reasoning is not based in reality, which makes any other reasoning they do that is also purportedly based in reality suspect.

A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without performing what the rest of the world is incorrect science. I agree with Dawkins that this makes him suspect as a scientist, because we should base our beliefs upon facts.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#32

Post by endtime »

boneheadmed wrote: post #5

I have been following astrophysicist Hugh Ross for some time. For a very intelligent exploration of creationist ideas (that very decidedly do not accept that the earth is only 10,000 years old) check out Reasons To Believe: http://www.reasons.org/

I'm reluctant to agree that a website with drivel like "does this synthetic life form point to intelligent agency at every step of the way?" proudly featured on its front page is intelligent.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#34

Post by jmillikin »

kd0amg wrote: post #25
jmillikin wrote: post #20

Even if a doctor's belief in the stork theory of reproduction is technically irrelevant to his competence as an eye surgeon, it tells you something about him. It is revealing. It is relevant in a general way to whether we would wish him to treat us or teach us. A patient could reasonably shrink from entrusting her eyes to a doctor whose beliefs (admittedly in the apparently unrelated field of obstetrics) are so catac…

Would you refuse treatment from an ophthalmologist who believed: 1. The seasons are caused by Earth approaching and receding from the Sun? 2. Fixed-wing aircraft fly because air moves over and under the wing at the same rate? 3. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb? People generally expect a physician of any specialty to have a solid grounding in biology. The first two are cases of ignorance of physics; the third is…

Young-Earth creationism is ignorance of physics, not biology. If Earth were created 6000 years ago, then there has not been enough time for evolutionary pressure to significantly alter the human genome yet. It's entirely reasonable for a YEC to believe in evolution, while simultaneously believing the current forms of most species are not the result of evolution.

Ignorance of biology gives rise to complete denial of evolution, which is a separate belief.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#35

Post by kldavis4 »

rewind wrote: post #16
jimbokun wrote: post #10

This obsession with unearthing people's private beliefs and actively using them as grounds to discriminate against them, seems quite Orwellian to me. Why not just evaluate how well an employee does the job she is paid to do, and not worry about the ideas she expresses outside of work, or the activities she engages in? Dawkins simply seems to be looking for ways of making life more difficult for religious people. If t…

There's too much grey to make this black and white. What would you say to a closeted gay politician pushing anti-gay legislation? Would you not consider that person a fraud, just like someone saying their research is based on the universe being 13 billion years old when they don't really believe that?

If that politician is truly representing his constituency, then he is not a fraud and is doing what he is paid to do.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#36

Post by powrtoch »

I simply don't understand how Dawkins can give a real life example of a person very successfully keeping his beliefs totally separate from his related work and still say that we should care what that person believes. If being an "honest astronomer" doesn't make you a better astronomer, then why concern ourselves with it, at all?

What I find alarming is that nothing in this argument really conflicts with Dawkins. He accepts that these beliefs can make no measurable difference, and maintains that they're important anyway. He seems to think that it doesn't matter if an astronomer can advance our understanding of astronomy by leaps and bounds, if the astronomer doesn't update his own beliefs too, and that society should therefore refuse to let itself benefit from what he can offer. Why? Who wins in this scenario?

FWIW, I do agree that religious beliefs should not be considered distinct from "non religious" beliefs (with obvious exceptions for e.g. clergymen).

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#37

Post by yummyfajitas »

I find one of Dawkin's implicit assumptions very interesting.

My colleague takes the view that this YEC is entitled to a job...because he keeps his private beliefs to himself while at work...I would object to employing him, on the grounds that his research papers, and his lectures to students, are filled with what he personally believes to be falsehoods. He is a fake, a fraud, a charlatan, drawing a salary for a job that could have gone to an honest astronomer. Moreover, I would regard his equanimity in holding two diametrically opposing views simultaneously in his head as a revealing indicator that there is something wrong with his head.

Dawkins seems to believe that to be hired as a scientist, one must believe in the truth of the model one uses. I can't quite understand why he holds this view - at least in my experience, scientists study hypothesis they don't believe in all the time. I've done this (I don't believe in Copenhagen QM at all, and I'm skeptical of Bohmian mechanics). Does this make me a fraud? According to Dawkins, I guess it does.

By his logic, Einstein (not to mention Podolsky and Rosen) was also a fraud. He used a theory he didn't believe was correct (quantum mechanics) to derive conclusions he didn't believe were true. (Sadly, he didn't live long enough to see experimental verification of what he believed was a reducto ad absurdum.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

I wonder if Dawkins truly believes all scientists who use theories they don't believe are frauds, or if he only thinks this about theistic (quasi-)theories [1]? If he holds the former belief, I think he really needs to devote a little bit of time to learning about metaphysics and the philosophy of science.

[1] Many beliefs held by theists are "not even wrong", and are therefore not theories. Take, for example, the following flavor of young earth creationism: "God created the universe 6000 years ago, with the state psi(0) = U(-6000 years) psi(world today). psi is the wavefuntion, U is the propagator. It is true that U(-20 billion years ) psi(world today) yields the big bang, but that's just a mathematical curiosity rather than history." This belief is unfalsifiable, and completely consistent with all scientific theories that are governed by an initial value problem (pretty much all of them).

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#38

Post by pjscott »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #7

What if they believe non-mainstream cosmological theories? Where does orthodoxy enforcement stop?

I noticed that Dawkins didn't really discuss that point much; that's a matter for another, much longer, article. His thesis was simply that the orthodoxy enforcement should stop in the same place for religious beliefs as it does for non-religious ones.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#39

Post by roel_v »

As a side note and referring to the quoted email in the second paragraph, any idiot (in this case the idiot was apparently the chairman of the search committee) who puts such strong evidence that can later be used against the company/institution in writing, in email no less, should be fired on the spot.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#40

Post by borism »

Here's favorite story of mine on this topic. My favorite philosopher Slavoj Zizek quotes this often as well in his Reality of the Virtual themed lectures (it is disputed whether the story itself is true or not):

An American scientist once visited the offices of the great Nobel prize winning physicist, Niels Bohr, in Copenhagen. He was amazed to find that over Bohr’s desk was a horseshoe, securely nailed to the wall, with the open end up in the approved manner (so it would catch the good luck and not let it spill out).

The American said with a nervous laugh, “Surely you don’t believe the horseshoe will bring you good luck, do you, Professor Bohr? After all, as a scientist –” Bohr chuckled. “I believe no such thing, my good friend. Not at all. I am scarcely likely to believe in such foolish nonsense. However, I am told that a horseshoe will bring you good luck whether you believe in it or not.”

I guess Dawkins would fire Bohr. Truly an atheist on a crusade!

Post reply on HN