Posted: Jul 30, 2012 1:04 am
Fallible wrote:That's the point for me though - Dawkins didn't know what was going on, received his 'information' from only one source, and used that as the sole basis from which to launch a scathing and untruthful attack on the membership and volunteer staff.
+1000!
One would hope that in a life of science, some leakage of its some of the principles of hypothesis testing, a consideration of all the available evidence [without fear or favour] would leak into other areas of our lives. But apparently, this does not always happen in some cases. Basing his opinion only on what Josh told him, is I suppose and understandable and human thing. But it does not make it right. PZ Myers did much the same thing when I voiced such matters on his website-he sided with Dawkins without question, and banned me.