[Buddha-l] Prominent Neobuddhist proposes religion based blacklisting for government jobs

[Curt Steinmetz]

Richard Hayes wrote:
> As I understand  
> what I have read, Harris was not at all questioning whether Collins is  
> a competent scientist. Rather, he was asking whether a person who has  
> strong religious convictions can be counted on to apply his scientific  
> credentials consistently. If a scientist is capable of keeping her  
> religious convictions completely private and does not let her  
> essentially untestable religious dogmas mix in with testable  
> scientific hypotheses while she is doing science, then there is  
> nothing to worry about. But if a scientist, and especially one in a  
> position to make public policy, cannot keep non-scientific  
> considerations out of her discussions of science, then she is  
> incompetent. One need not be a scientist to know that. 

You are dead wrong here, Richard ("dead" as in "dead to rights", "dead 
on", "dead center"....).

First of all, only someone with substantial scientific training can 
judge the competency of a scientist.

Scientists judging the competency of other scientists is a standard part 
of how science is done - it is called "peer review". Has Sam Harris ever 
reviewed a journal article, or a grant application? The question itself 
is ridiculous - no one would ever suggest that this graduate student is 
competent to do any such thing.  And yet you, Richard, are proposing 
that Harris is competent to judge someone who will be several echelons 
up the ladder from the people who review grants that are submitted to NIH.

Maybe Sam Harris should first write a proposal that is actually funded 
by the NIH, and then write several more, and then maybe after several 
years of that he might get to be a reviewer himself .... and then after 
10 or 20 or 30 years of that he might have the credentials to have an 
opinion concerning the competency of someone like Francis Collins.

Second of all, Collins has a track record both as a researcher and as an 
administrator. Speculating about how his judgment might be impaired is 
malarkey. Where has he ever once shown any sign of poor judgment in 
either his scientific work or in his various leadership and 
administrative roles? In fact, if Collins had shown such signs of poor 
judgment then his RELIGION wouldn't matter, would it? How is that not 
obvious?

Sam Harris makes explicit reference to Collins' religious beliefs in 
every single paragraph - go back and read it. This is purely about 
Collins' religion. Of that there can be no doubt. And we simply do not 
penalize people for their religious beliefs in this country - of that 
there should be no doubt, but unfortunately that appears not to be the 
case (cue patriotic background music).

Curt Steinmetz

> Hence, to say  
> of Harris that he is not as good as qualified a scientist as Collins  
> is a very bad argument indeed. It is informally fallacious and thus  
> not at all persuasive (except to Zen Buddhists, who are taught not to  
> think too much).
>
>   
>> This is no better than Rush Limbaugh declaring that global warming is
>> a hoax.
>>     
>
> This is a completely fallacious argument. EVERYTHING is better than  
> Rush Limbaugh.
>
>