16-Dec-2010, 10:48 PM
http://cruller.cc.trincoll.edu/NR/rdonly...Report.pdf
I happened to run into a 'journalistic response' to the above mentioned study. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opin...158319.cms
The journalist puts a spin on the findings, ignoring all the damnable things revealing superstition, and picking up a couple of points, and then writing some drivel about them. I wonder if there are any logical fallacies in there.
The author has dragged into the argument couple of apparent atheists who built a bomb, and then religious extremists making mass destruction devices and then portraying the Indian scientists as good compared to these adversaries. Isnt this a False Dilemma?
Isn't this a red Herring argument, by dragging in and misappropriating "higher ideals" to deflect from the actual point of looking at the individual issues separately?
I happened to run into a 'journalistic response' to the above mentioned study. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opin...158319.cms
The journalist puts a spin on the findings, ignoring all the damnable things revealing superstition, and picking up a couple of points, and then writing some drivel about them. I wonder if there are any logical fallacies in there.
Quote:Commenting on the findings, the chairman of the Centre for Inquiry, Narisetti Innaiah said: “Our scientists aren’t applying the scientific temper in all fields of life to provide an ethical alternative to religious and paranormal worldviews.”
But, really, what kind of ethical alternatives are we talking about here, when an amazing 64% of scientists also said they would refuse to design biological weapons because of their beliefs, while 54% said they will not work on nuclear weapons for the same reasons? Compare that with atheists and agnostics like J Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller who built the atom and hydrogen bombs which have in the past ended entire cities and in the future have the potential to end the whole world. If sensible people had a choice between them, religious extremists making mass destruction devices and the majority of Indian scientists surveyed, who should they choose?
The author has dragged into the argument couple of apparent atheists who built a bomb, and then religious extremists making mass destruction devices and then portraying the Indian scientists as good compared to these adversaries. Isnt this a False Dilemma?
Quote:That’s not all. As many as 93% scientists defined secularism as tolerance for other religions and beliefs, while only a minority said it meant atheism. A majority of scientists thought of themselves as being spiritual, which according to two-thirds of them was either “commitment to higher human ideals, such as peace, harmony or well being” (34%), or “a higher level of human consciousness or awareness” (31%). Are these convictions less important than merely possessing a scientific temper? What if one had such a temper and wasn’t committed to the discovery of a higher ideal? Which would be preferable in interpersonal relationships or to society?
Isn't this a red Herring argument, by dragging in and misappropriating "higher ideals" to deflect from the actual point of looking at the individual issues separately?
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has - Margaret Mead