|
When scientists become activists
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
Richard Dawkins, who is primarily an ethologist and an evolutionary biologist has gained some notoriety disputing the merits of religion. Noam Chomsky, a linguist, has been quite popular among fans of politics after opposing the war in Vietnam. What Dawkins and Chomsky have in common is the fact that both of them are now famous for an activism that is not related (directly) to their academic studies.
Do you approve of this? Are academics more reliable and insightful than, let's say, journalists and media people in general? Should academics leave university and fight "more concrete" causes?
My opinion on this is naturally biased (having been sucked into the academic sphere and being a rebel at heart :p), so I'd like to hear some of your criticism first :) |
|
|
| Zild |
| I'd definitely be more apt to listen to an academic than a journalist. |
|
|
| biznology |
| most people often have no idea what they are talking about, nor are willing to consider someone else's opinion| |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
It depends but generally I'd be more inclined to listen to an Academic. Why? Because the chances of them being able to "THINK" are much higher than a journalists, whose motives are more shady (especially one working for Fox News. But then again, those people are actors, not journalists).
I'm not one to accept one persons opinion as the whole truth though, no matter who they are. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
i have a hard time JUST believing anyone. ill question both but for obvious reasons id question the journalist more. mostly because id want to make sure they did their research before comitting to the cause. great example of why i would do this is:
Penn & Tellers: Bull ep about banning diHydrogenOxide (H2O for those non chem peeps). |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
My opinion on this is naturally biased (having been sucked into the academic sphere and being a rebel at heart :p), so I'd like to hear some of your criticism first :) |
Rebels! They are the pellets I use as fuel in my plasma core! But don't ask me what one of those is. Ask Zild, he is more learned on such subjects. |
|
|
| inconspicuous |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Do you approve of this? Are academics more reliable and insightful than, let's say, journalists and media people in general? Should academics leave university and fight "more concrete" causes? |
No.
Not necessarily. I wouldn't generalize in one way or the other, though I don't consider the two people you mentioned to qualify as either (Chomsky, especially).
If they cannot separate the two, then yes.
Everyone has opinions that differ from those of others. The problem arises when those are presented as factual information, particularly if the opposing stance is not included in such discussions, which it most often is not at educational institutions (at least in the US). |
|
|
| biznology |
people whom think they might be wrong generally know more than people that think they know everything.
journalists generally dont know what they are talking about, they are just supposed to talk. academics often have to figure it out themselves.
there are quite a few people that find the search for knowledge frightening however| |
|
|
| DJ Mikey Mike |
| I approve of anything Richard Dawkins has to say; on any subject matter. He is one seriously clued up mother er and his book, 'The God Delusion,' is one of the most satisfying reads of my life. Arrogance and intellect - What a sexy combo! |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| i don't like richard dawkins |
|
|
| RJT |
Dawkins is one of the most intelligent yet ignorant idiots the world will ever know.
As dangerous as any televangelist who has ever existed. Maybe worse. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Dangerous? How? |
|
|
|
|
