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

111–120 of 145 posts

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

#111

Post by bugsy »

lutorm wrote: post #71
knieveltech wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without performing what the rest of the world is incorrect science." I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. The whole Science VS Faith thing is a false dichotomy, the two are not inherently incompatible except in the minds of unfortunate extremists on both sides of the argument. Implying that they are ignores the fact that the vast overwhelming majority of sci…

You may think it's bullshit. I disagree. It's true that in many cases, there is no conflict. There is no conflict (currently, at least) between believing that God was responsible for the Big Bang and belief in cosmology. In the case of believing that the Earth is I don't see how one can argue with that without resorting to contrived beliefs that God set up a huge hoax by making the Universe seem to be 14Gyr old. (Tha…

You make a good point that a claim to creationist belief might be in terms of a belief that God set in motion the Big Bang. Noting of course that belief in the Truth of the Big Bang is as scientific as a belief in the Truth of the existence of God. Neither claim has been verified, both have arguments for and against, both have reasonable alternative theories.

> In the case of believing that the Earth is I have found that in the "scientific creationist" camp (scientific because they propose experiments to test hypotheses and write up their results in a paper format so that the experiment is understood and replicable) there is a lot of useful discussion about assumptions regarding dating. Not talking about the blind faith camp, talking about people asking how remnants of helium isotopes can be found in ancient rocks when the expected diffusion rates of the helium give a substantially different date than measuring remnant radioactive isotope content. These are interesting findings. They may not prove anything about God, but they are at least exploring interesting scientific issues.

For example, most of them will be OK with saying the earth is about 4.5 billion years old as long as we acknowledge that by "years" we mean not in terms of orbits of the earth around the sun, but in terms of the time for radioactive decay to occur, assuming a given set of original conditions which may or may not be correct.

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

#112

Post by JabavuAdams »

shadowfox wrote: post #88
JabavuAdams wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Times change. In the past you could be killed (in the West) for not being religious, or for adhering to the wrong sect. The way we're headed, religious belief is becoming more and more fringe. Basically, religion only "makes sense" if most people are raised in that tradition. From the outside (i.e. to people not raised in a religious tradition) it just sounds kind of silly at best, or crazy at worst. So, at a certain…

> The way we're headed, religious belief is becoming more and more fringe Any references?

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/c-g/4097586-en...

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

#114

Post by shadowfox »

mquander wrote: post #27
tjr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I read that. Not all creationists believe that the universe is less than ten thousand years old. Another quote: My own position would be that if a young earth creationist (YEC, the barking mad kind who believe the entire universe began after the domestication of the dog) is "breathtakingly above the other candidates", then the other candidates must be so bad that we should re-advertise and start afresh. He seems…

Well, knowing Richard Dawkins, he thinks more or less any religious person is "barking mad." It sounds to me like he is just advocating for discrimination against people with stupid beliefs (where "stupid" is up to the employer to decide, I suppose), on the grounds that just being stupid is enough to put the quality and honesty of someone's work in doubt. Personally, I think his position is barking mad itself. I mean…

Curiously enough:

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function

- F. Scott Fitzgerald

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

#116

Post by bugsy »

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…

You speak of ignorance. I don't think this theoretical ophthalmologist is ignorant of descent of man theory, nor does he deny that populations of bacteria will develop resistance to antibiotics, nor does he deny that ape and man, like man and pig, aren't similar enough that some kinds of transplants are possible.

To say that his theorized skepticism towards descent of man theory would detrimentally affect his work one would have to say how this would occur. It what situations do either skepticism or belief in descent of man theory affect ophthalmology. That has not been established.

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

#117

Post by spindritf »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #103
spindritf wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The way we're headed, religious belief is becoming more and more fringe. Not really https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographics_... but even if it was so, at which point is it OK to discriminate against people holding fringe views?

I don't see any stats on change over time in the link you provided. Are you seriously suggesting that religion is as well-respected today as it was 100 years ago? > but even if it was so, at which point is it OK to discriminate against people holding fringe views When they are a danger to others. Insanity is culturally-defined. We currently discriminate against people we consider insane.

> Are you seriously suggesting that religion is as well-respected today as it was 100 years ago?

There is a huge leap from "more and more fringe" to "as well-respected today as it was 100 years ago". Religious views are common, not "more and more fringe", not even just "fringe". Also, extrapolating observations about popularity of religious views doesn't seem to me like a very reliable way of making predictions.

>> at which point is it OK to discriminate against people holding fringe views

> When they are a danger to others.

Which is clearly not the case.

> We currently discriminate against people we consider insane.

Sure, but the trend is to make the effort not to. People like John Nash https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Forbes_N... receive recognition despite their problems, or for overcoming them.

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

#118

Post by borism »

pjscott wrote: post #80
borism wrote: post #40

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,…

Do you actually believe that Dawkins would do anything other than chuckle amicably in that situation?

Did I not write I guess?

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

#119

Post by Luc »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #37

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…

I'm just an amateur physicist... but since you're a pro, I'm sure you don't really mean it when you say Einstein 'used a theory he didn't believe was correct (quantum mechanics) to derive conclusions he didn't believe were true'. I mean, that could be misunderstood quite easily as the pop-physics version of history, in which the aging old Einstein just can't hack it, staying stuck in the old ways of thinking.

In reality, of course, Einstein was one of the world's top experts in QM, made some large contributions to it, and understood and agreed with the formalism like everybody else - since the experimental verifications were clearly impressive. His opposition was mainly to Bohr's positivism, and to the completeness of QM, but he didn't oppose it's consistency or correctness. At least after about 1930 or so.

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

#120

Post by naner »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #37

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…

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.

I don't believe that is the case. As long as you can explain why you don't agree with the models in a rational manner and are open to the possibility that you are wrong, then you are fine. Dawkins appears to be upset with compromising the integrity of a scientific position.

He quoted a scientist claiming that even if all evidence clearly indicated the Earth was very old, he would still not believe it because the Bible says differently. And that same scientist also appears to believe that there is not an insigificant amount of evidence indicating that the Earth is very young. This makes me think Dawkins might be right. If this man already knows the answers he is looking for then he cannot be reasonably impartial.

That type of thing is worlds away from "I am skeptical of this model because [science stuff]". Perhaps Dawkins is holding these positions to an unrealistic high standard, but I don't think he is being as ridiculous as you indicate.

Post reply on HN