A Great Scientist, Scholar and Gentleman, we worked together to defend the teaching of Evolution, including convincing the Catholic Church not to abandon it
Instead of celebrating defenders of science, you might consider editing that a bit to celebrating defenders of reason.
The scientific method is an effective conceptual tool which has proven it's ability to develop new knowledge beyond any doubt. It doesn't really need defending, just as a screwdriver doesn't require a defense.
The use of the scientific method can be rational or not, depending on the circumstances. Our relationship with use of the scientific method can be rational or not. To never use the scientific method would be irrational. To always pursue new knowledge no matter what is equally irrational.
When discussing science it seems helpful to make a clear distinction between the scientific method, and our relationship with science. The scientific method is rational, our use of that method may or may not be.
As to evolution, I've never understood why it is considered proof of anything in regards to god claims. Evolution may demonstrate a god is not necessary, and it can equally demonstrate an automated mechanism by which some source of higher intelligence would manage the development of life.
If evolution is correct, people who believe in a deity and have to answer the question of when and how did their God intervene in the evolution of humanity. With no intervention, god would be irrelevant.
Was God responsible for allowing homo erectus and later homo sapiens to evolve a big energy burning brain to allow humanity to evolve past stone tools and fire to modern creation of wealth from "specialization and trade"? Or was the energetic payoff of "specialization and trade" large enough to evolutionary justify a brain that burns 20% of our metabolic energy (which doesn't require a god)? Obsidian is a lot better rock for stone tools and salt preserves meat but both rock and salt are not distributed uniformly over areas.
Some primate had a stranger with a hunk of obsidian enter his area and he didn't just steal his rock, as is typical for primates, but gave him food and shells to get more females and sent him back to get more rock. Meanwhile with a source of obsidian he got more females and could provide more food with less effort.
I did not go looking for trouble. You mentioned his Wikipedia page and I went there to find more about this important person. The page mentioned sexual harassment allegations and cited https://www.science.org/content/article/report-gives-details-sexual-harassment-allegations-felled-famed-geneticist. His behavior is all too common for people his age and I tolerated similar attitudes all my life in various contexts. But I was born in a macho society and it did not bother me much. Ayala's transgressions were comments and hands and kisses ( all too common in European cultures in the past) but he did not stop when he was admonished. He created an atmosphere discouraging women of today from science. And that is the only reason I mention it because I keep hearing from men that women are taking over the sciences.
Don’t believe everything you read. This “transgressions included open doors for women and kissing people on the cheek. He was in his 80’s from Spain and that was called being polite. He supported and encouraged women and others thoughout his career. It is tragic that they railroaded him so late in his life.
The main thing that struck me as unprofessional was asking a female scientist to sit on his lap at a meeting. It may be a joke at a party but not at a meeting. Then he apologized to her but later reneged and called her a liar. I do not agree with his cancellation, but I also do not agree that he should be allowed to continue a behavior that was found objectionable by women. There should have been a better comprise. What I see is women who are fed up by they way they are treated in society in general and can no longer stand the merest slight. The straw that broke the camel's back. But that's is my interpretation from my experiences.
Instead of celebrating defenders of science, you might consider editing that a bit to celebrating defenders of reason.
The scientific method is an effective conceptual tool which has proven it's ability to develop new knowledge beyond any doubt. It doesn't really need defending, just as a screwdriver doesn't require a defense.
The use of the scientific method can be rational or not, depending on the circumstances. Our relationship with use of the scientific method can be rational or not. To never use the scientific method would be irrational. To always pursue new knowledge no matter what is equally irrational.
When discussing science it seems helpful to make a clear distinction between the scientific method, and our relationship with science. The scientific method is rational, our use of that method may or may not be.
As to evolution, I've never understood why it is considered proof of anything in regards to god claims. Evolution may demonstrate a god is not necessary, and it can equally demonstrate an automated mechanism by which some source of higher intelligence would manage the development of life.
If evolution is correct, people who believe in a deity and have to answer the question of when and how did their God intervene in the evolution of humanity. With no intervention, god would be irrelevant.
Was God responsible for allowing homo erectus and later homo sapiens to evolve a big energy burning brain to allow humanity to evolve past stone tools and fire to modern creation of wealth from "specialization and trade"? Or was the energetic payoff of "specialization and trade" large enough to evolutionary justify a brain that burns 20% of our metabolic energy (which doesn't require a god)? Obsidian is a lot better rock for stone tools and salt preserves meat but both rock and salt are not distributed uniformly over areas.
Some primate had a stranger with a hunk of obsidian enter his area and he didn't just steal his rock, as is typical for primates, but gave him food and shells to get more females and sent him back to get more rock. Meanwhile with a source of obsidian he got more females and could provide more food with less effort.
I did not go looking for trouble. You mentioned his Wikipedia page and I went there to find more about this important person. The page mentioned sexual harassment allegations and cited https://www.science.org/content/article/report-gives-details-sexual-harassment-allegations-felled-famed-geneticist. His behavior is all too common for people his age and I tolerated similar attitudes all my life in various contexts. But I was born in a macho society and it did not bother me much. Ayala's transgressions were comments and hands and kisses ( all too common in European cultures in the past) but he did not stop when he was admonished. He created an atmosphere discouraging women of today from science. And that is the only reason I mention it because I keep hearing from men that women are taking over the sciences.
Don’t believe everything you read. This “transgressions included open doors for women and kissing people on the cheek. He was in his 80’s from Spain and that was called being polite. He supported and encouraged women and others thoughout his career. It is tragic that they railroaded him so late in his life.
Ps. I new the man, as did many of his female colleagues like Elizabeth loftus. They worked hard to try and stop the kangaroo court but didn’t succeed.
The main thing that struck me as unprofessional was asking a female scientist to sit on his lap at a meeting. It may be a joke at a party but not at a meeting. Then he apologized to her but later reneged and called her a liar. I do not agree with his cancellation, but I also do not agree that he should be allowed to continue a behavior that was found objectionable by women. There should have been a better comprise. What I see is women who are fed up by they way they are treated in society in general and can no longer stand the merest slight. The straw that broke the camel's back. But that's is my interpretation from my experiences.
I understand but I have also heard the context from others who were there. In any case let’s let the matter rest there.
If you wish, you may delete it.
no.. discussions are always good.