The discussion centers around the recognition of Richard Dawkins as a scientist, prompted by a claim encountered online suggesting he is not a recognized scientist. Participants explore Dawkins' research contributions and seek references to his work.
Participants do not reach a consensus on Dawkins' recognition as a scientist, with multiple competing views and uncertainties expressed regarding the validity of the claims made about him.
Limitations include the lack of concrete references to Dawkins' research papers and the reliance on informal sources such as social media comments to initiate the discussion.
Can you provide a link to this?murshid_islam said:Can you provide some references to his list of researches?
murshid_islam said:Just saw a claim online that "Dawkins isn't a recognized scientist"
Unfortunately, it was a random facebook comment (which made me curious) that I noticed while scrolling. I don't have a link.BillTre said:Can you provide a link to this?
I went to his Wikipedia page. It has a list of his published books. I wanted to see a list of his research papers. Any idea where I can find that?BillTre said:Did your curiosity drive you to do any searches on Richard Dawkins yourself?
What did you find?
You will save yourself time in the long run if you learn to search the web for this stuff yourself. Personally, I like google search, sometimes google scholar.murshid_islam said:Can you provide some references to his list of researches?
Thank you.BillTre said:
The fact that he is emeritus fellow at Oxford surely speaks to some high regard does it not? Not necessarilly to his scientific prowess I suppose, but what exactly prompts your question?murshid_islam said:I went to his Wikipedia page.
You are seriously trying to use a random Facebook comment to start a thread in the PF technical forums? This thread is done.murshid_islam said:Unfortunately, it was a random facebook comment (which made me curious) that I noticed while scrolling. I don't have a link.