Is Richard Dawkins an Associate of The National Academy of Sciences?

<alt>doxygen · Nov 10, 2017

Threegoofs said:
I’ll just note here (since somehow this thread IS in the science section) that this is not true.

Severing two hemispheres of the brain is done in cases of severe epilepsy, and patients do not have dual consciousness. I actually saw a patient like this once- it was pretty amazing, but it was still one guy.

That was from a book I read. I dig it up and check the references. I would guess that the book was correct but my words/description were wrong. I'll tell you what I find.

<alt>doxygen · Nov 10, 2017

Threegoofs said:
I’ll just note here (since somehow this thread IS in the science section)\

This thread devolved from that long ago. I doubt it ever belonged in this forum. I don't often complain about such things, but this time I did and they let it slide for some reason.

Chagos · Nov 11, 2017

Errh..................... it's been here in religion and politics now for some time (moved here).

tosca1 · Nov 11, 2017

After all the guffaws.....and all the happy dancing by the pack...........at least you've gotten all your frustrations out of your system by now (I hope)......and all is well with you again (I hope)....

......let's get back to the subject:
the fact that after all these years - even despite his popularity - Richard Dawkins isn't an associate in the NAS.

It's a legitimate question since even Dawkins himself, had taken the time to tweet his excuse (which, however, isn't accurate at all) an obvious response to a query.......therefore, it's been brought up.

After all those posts you all contributed, I don't think anyone among you three has ever addressed the real question. It'll be interesting to know your take on this.

So....... when lesser-known (and even unknown) scientists from England had become Fellows,

why do you think popular Richard Dawkins - who was even claimed to have been at the "top of his field" - has never made it as an Associate in the National Academy of Sciences?

Chagos · Nov 11, 2017

:yawn:

tosca1 · Nov 11, 2017

Chagos said:
:yawn:

I thought so. :lol: Thanks for your candor.....and, for making it official.

Okay.....chagos can't give a response. He's been sleepwalking through the whole thing.
So, let's count him out.

I'd given 3 possible sensible, reasons:

1) Dawkins name came up, but was found lacking.
2) Dawkins didn't pass the vetting.
3) Dawkins didn't even get nominated.

Again. For those who are conscious, alert.......and, awake. IF YOU CAN, can you think of another reason why......

When lesser-known (and even unknown) scientists from England had become Fellows,

Why do you think popular Richard Dawkins - who was even claimed to have been at the "top of his field" - has never made it as an Associate in the National Academy of Sciences?

iguanaman · Nov 11, 2017

tosca1 said:
Well, he's done not only a lot of back-handed, but also very up-in-your-face personal attacks on everyone who dare believe in a god - in a very egotistical and pompous manner.

Furthermore, he incites, and actually calls for atheists to shame religious people. So, he better be prepared to receive some tits to his tats.

Since he's made himself fair game...... it's only natural to poke at his credentials!

Actually turn about is fair play. The "religious" have been burning atheists at the stake for centuries. A little shaming is nothing.

Chagos · Nov 11, 2017

tosca1 said:
I thought so. :lol: Thanks for your candor.....and, for making it official.

Okay.....chagos can't give a response. He's been sleepwalking through the whole thing.
So, let's count him out.

I'd given 3 possible sensible, reasons:

1) Dawkins name came up, but was found lacking.
2) Dawkins didn't pass the vetting.
3) Dawkins didn't even get nominated.

Again. For those who are conscious, alert.......and, awake. IF YOU CAN, can you think of another reason why......

When lesser-known (and even unknown) scientists from England had become Fellows,

Why do you think popular Richard Dawkins - who was even claimed to have been at the "top of his field" - has never made it as an Associate in the National Academy of Sciences?

:lamo

posting frenzy, misappropriations, cognitive dissonance, ignorance by OP even over own posts.

Priceless.

Oh yeah, anything on post #231 yet?

Lursa · Nov 11, 2017

tosca1 said:
After all the guffaws.....and all the happy dancing by the pack...........at least you've gotten all your frustrations out of your system by now (I hope)......and all is well with you again (I hope)....

......let's get back to the subject:
the fact that after all these years - even despite his popularity - Richard Dawkins isn't an associate in the NAS.

It's a legitimate question since even Dawkins himself, had taken the time to tweet his excuse (which, however, isn't accurate at all) an obvious response to a query.......therefore, it's been brought up.

After all those posts you all contributed, I don't think anyone among you three has ever addressed the real question. It'll be interesting to know your take on this.

So....... when lesser-known (and even unknown) scientists from England had become Fellows,

why do you think popular Richard Dawkins - who was even claimed to have been at the "top of his field" - has never made it as an Associate in the National Academy of Sciences?

Sure we did. We or at least I, asked what the criteria were for his consideration for the award so that we could see if it was actually relevant to his work or his accomplishments.

You failed to provide that.

Why should he get an award if it's not appropriate?

tosca1 · Nov 11, 2017

Lursa said:
Sure we did. We or at least I, asked what the criteria were for his consideration for the award so that we could see if it was actually relevant to his work or his accomplishments.

You failed to provide that.

Like I've told you......unless you're among those qualified to nominate and vet a nominee - knowing what the criteria is, won't change the fact that Dawkins hasn't made it to the NAS.

Here is what the NAS says:

Members are elected to the National Academy of Sciences in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research.

Because membership is achieved by election, there is no membership application process. Although many names are suggested informally, only Academy members may submit formal nominations.

Consideration of a candidate begins with his or her nomination, followed by an extensive and careful vetting process that results in a final ballot at the Academy's annual meeting in April each year.

Membership Overview

Why should he get an award if it's not appropriate?

It's not an award!

But you might just as well say it is like one, since it's very difficult to get in.

What would make it inappropriate to elect an associate? If the associate didn't meet the criteria.

So....that's your assumption as to why Dawkins didn't make it yet. He didn't meet the criteria.
That's the same as #1 above. His name must've come up, but he was found lacking.

Logicman · Nov 14, 2017

<alt>doxygen said:
Exactly. And if science shakes your faith, I'd say it's time to address the issues with your faith. Science is not your problem. (Statement not pointed at you, Lursa)

On a side note : I've always wondered why/how some people seem to acquire and hold faith. I wonder if there's a physiological or genetic predisposition for it? I wonder/ask this because I've always been too skeptical to manage it. I absolutely never bought into Santa Clause, the tooth fairy...anything like that.

zyzygy · Nov 14, 2017

Logicman said:
View attachment 67224907

Ever heard of vacuum fluctuations?

RAMOSS · Nov 14, 2017

zyzygy said:
Ever heard of vacuum fluctuations?

Logicman, of course, posted a straw man. I don't know any atheist that said the universe came from 'nothing'. Nor have I heard any astrophysicist or cosmologist say that either. But why let truth get in the way of a good story??

zyzygy · Nov 14, 2017

Facts are anathema to Logicman.

"So it’s not that there was nothing and then suddenly there was something, but that the Universe was in a state that was governed purely by quantum mechanics. Inflation then amplified quantum fluctuations in our proto-Universe onto large scales that then became our Universe as we know it.

Because of quantum mechanics, there is no such thing as nothing." No such thing as nothing | Jon Kaufman

tosca1 · Nov 14, 2017

RAMOSS said:
Logicman, of course, posted a straw man. I don't know any atheist that said the universe came from 'nothing'. Nor have I heard any astrophysicist or cosmologist say that either. But why let truth get in the way of a good story??

Maybe you have not heard Dawkins?

Or, Krauss?

tosca1 · Nov 14, 2017

zyzygy said:
Facts are anathema to Logicman.

"So it’s not that there was nothing and then suddenly there was something, but that the Universe was in a state that was governed purely by quantum mechanics. Inflation then amplified quantum fluctuations in our proto-Universe onto large scales that then became our Universe as we know it.

Because of quantum mechanics, there is no such thing as nothing." No such thing as nothing | Jon Kaufman

It's all hypothesis!

Boy - they don't even know how the planets are formed, and here they are theorizing how the universe
came from nothing!

Here's your vacuum fluctuation!

The 'vacuum genesis' hypothesis theorizes that the entire universe began as a big fluctuation in the 'nothing' that came before it. While it hasn't been proven, it sure is an interesting idea to think about: that in the end, all we—you, me, the whole universe—add up to is a big bunch of nothing.

What Is 'Nothing', Really? Possibly Everything

What's a hypothesis? SUPPOSITION! It's a "what if."

RAMOSS · Nov 14, 2017

zyzygy said:
Facts are anathema to Logicman.

"So it’s not that there was nothing and then suddenly there was something, but that the Universe was in a state that was governed purely by quantum mechanics. Inflation then amplified quantum fluctuations in our proto-Universe onto large scales that then became our Universe as we know it.

Because of quantum mechanics, there is no such thing as nothing." No such thing as nothing | Jon Kaufman

What is known as 'nothing' to the theologian is not what 'nothing' is to the cosmologist, precisely for that reason. People who invoke that are doing the logical fallacy of equivocation, which is either ignorant, or dishonest.

zyzygy · Nov 14, 2017

RAMOSS said:
What is known as 'nothing' to the theologian is not what 'nothing' is to the cosmologist, precisely for that reason. People who invoke that are doing the logical fallacy of equivocation, which is either ignorant, or dishonest.

When it comes to backing up a belief with evidence theologians are the ones with nothing.

<alt>doxygen · Nov 15, 2017

Logicman said:
View attachment 67224907

I'll continue that silly thought progression:

1) It can't come from nothing, so GOD!

2) Where did GOD come from?

3) Well, we aren't allowed to know, so we assume GOD always WAS!

-> Insert face in last picture.

God is not a better answer. It just begs the same question. Sorry, but that's weak.

Logicman · Nov 15, 2017

<alt>doxygen said:
I'll continue that silly thought progression:

1) It can't come from nothing, so GOD!

2) Where did GOD come from?

3) Well, we aren't allowed to know, so we assume GOD always WAS!

-> Insert face in last picture.

God is not a better answer. It just begs the same question. Sorry, but that's weak.

Nope. But at least you understand now that you believe in magic.

<alt>doxygen · Nov 15, 2017

Logicman said:
Nope. But at least you understand now that you believe in magic.

You're projecting. Whatever helps.

I'm sure you can explain how the light from long dead stars is hitting our planet only 6,000 years after god put them waaaaay out there.

The difference is, I know that I don't have all of the answers, and it doesn't bother me. You think you know the answers, and you're angry that people have evidence that proves your answers false.

Logicman · Nov 15, 2017

<alt>doxygen said:
You're projecting. Whatever helps.

I'm sure you can explain how the light from long dead stars is hitting our planet only 6,000 years after god put them waaaaay out there.

See, once again you haven't done your homework. Genesis doesn't say the earth is 6,000 years old.

<alt>doxygen said:
The difference is, I know that I don't have all of the answers, and it doesn't bother me. You think you know the answers, and you're angry that people have evidence that proves your answers false.

Nope. I just work to keep honest those like you who infer the Bible is magic, so you won't believe, while ignoring the magic you have to believe in to make your world view fly.

<alt>doxygen · Nov 15, 2017

Logicman said:
See, once again you haven't done your homework. Genesis doesn't say the earth is 6,000 years old.

Please inform Ken Ham, all of the young earthers and so-called "creation scientists" that they have a flawed interpretation of Genesis.

Geez, no wonder Christians need thousands of denominations and no wonder those denominations argue and fight over what their divinely inspired book says and means.

How old do you think the universe is, and on what basis do you believe that? Please, no 'righterreport'. That's a bad joke.

Nope. I just work to keep honest those like you who infer the Bible is magic, so you won't believe, while ignoring the magic you have to believe in to make your world view fly.

The bible describes supernatural events that no one can prove ever occurred. Do you like "fantasy" better than magic? How about alt-history adorned with fundamentalist christian stories? Whatever, I'll take real science with its holes any day. I can reject scientists that attempt to make their unsupported beliefs into dogma just as easily.

Creation Science isn't science. :roll:

Logicman · Nov 15, 2017

<alt>doxygen said:
Please inform Ken Ham, all of the young earthers and so-called "creation scientists" that they have a flawed interpretation of Genesis.

Geez, no wonder Christians need thousands of denominations and no wonder those denominations argue and fight over what their divinely inspired book says and means.

How old do you think the universe is, and on what basis do you believe that? Please, no 'righterreport'. That's a bad joke.

Why haven't you studied it yourself?

<alt>doxygen said:
The bible describes supernatural events that no one can prove ever occurred. Do you like "fantasy" better than magic? How about alt-history adorned with fundamentalist christian stories? Whatever, I'll take real science with its holes any day. I can reject scientists that attempt to make their unsupported beliefs into dogma just as easily.

Creation Science isn't science. :roll:

When you can bust the Resurrection then you'll BEGIN to have some credibility with your fairy tale claims.

William Rea · Nov 16, 2017

Logicman said:
Why haven't you studied it yourself?

When you can bust the Resurrection then you'll BEGIN to have some credibility with your fairy tale claims.

Produce your resurrection. If you can't show it, you don't know it.

Is Richard Dawkins an Associate of The National Academy of Sciences?

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"

Chagos

tosca1

Chagos

tosca1

iguanaman

Chagos

Lursa

Tenacious

tosca1

Logicman

zyzygy

RAMOSS

zyzygy

tosca1

tosca1

RAMOSS

zyzygy

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"

Logicman

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"

Logicman

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"

Logicman

William Rea