We continue, from part 1, our consideration of Richard Dawkins’ review of Richard Milton’s book Shattering the Myth of Darwinism (New Statesman August 28, 1992 AD).
Now we appear to be getting somewhere as the king of cynicism himself urges us thusly, “But let’s not be so cynical.” Right ol’ chap, let us get to the science of it all, “Mightn’t the publishers have an honourable defence? Perhaps this unqualified hack is a solitary genius, the only soldier in the entire platoon – nay, regiment – who is in step.” Well, so much for expecting science from a qualified hack.
Finally, Dawkins get to the book’s content so let us see how he does, “Perhaps the world really did bounce into existence in 8000 BC.” Well, the book does offer scientific argumentation regarding the readability or lack thereof of dating methods. Dawkins bypasses bothersome scientific counterarguments and merely mockingly refers to when the world may have “bounced” into existence—whatever that means. This alone, he appears to think, is enough to refute Milton’s scientific evidence.
Dawkins continues, “Perhaps the whole vast edifice of orthodox science really is totally and utterly off its trolley. (In the present case, it would have to be not just orthodox biology but physics, geology and cosmology too).” This is known as elephant hurling which is a cheap debater’s tacit whereby you hurl a bunch of terms or in this case entire fields of knowledge so as to give an impressive impression which amounts to an argument from authority. He does not specify what Milton specifically touches upon with regards to biology, physics, geology and cosmology but it is enough to know that if, as per Dawkins expert authority, it is troublesome to, apparently unchallengeable, orthodox science—behold.
Perhaps he will follow up his generic statement with specifically scientific replies. Well, he opts for stating, “How do we poor publishers know until we have printed the book and seen it panned? If you find that plea persuasive, think again. It could be used to justify publishing literally anything; flat-earth, fairies, astrology, werewolves and all.” Well, Dawkins had already correlated Milton with “flat-earthers, young-earthers, perpetual-motion merchants, astrologers and other harmless fruitcakes” so rather than double dipping on childish besmirchings, let us see if Dawkins gets down to it by golly.
In a rare moment of clarity, Dawkins notes, “It is true that an occasional lonely figure, originally written off as loony or at least wrong, has eventually been triumphantly vindicated (though not often a journalist like Richard Milton, it has to be said).” Fair enough (even if not bothering to offer evidence such as stats: Milton’s supposedly “often” versus his “occasional”).
It is also fair enough to note, “But it is also true that a much larger number of people originally regarded as wrong really were wrong” such as, for example, Charles Darwin (just ask Matt Dillahunty the uber-cyber-Atheist who denies being a Darwinist since Darwin’s theory has been disproven. Rather, Dillahunty calls himself an evolutionist which is a term that is generic enough to define as per what the theory de jour might be).
Well, Richard Dawkins does know something about publishing books and so his advice of this point may be on point as he seek to elucidate how to determine if a book is “worth publishing” even by a “wretched publisher.” He advises that the publisher “employ an editor with a smattering of scientific education” and that “It needn’t be much: A-level Biology would have been ample to see off Richard Milton.” Firstly, consider his admission that Milton’s publisher is one he never had heard of before then, pray tell, how does he know who they do or do not have on staff? Also, if an a-level Biology education is enough to smack Richard Milton into the realm of flat-earth, fairieites, astrologers, werewolf researchers, young-earthers, perpetual-motion merchants and other harmless fruitcakes then what will a Professor of biology do with Milton on the level of scientific evidence versus fruitcakery?
We are still waiting as Dawkins tells us that “At a more serious level, there are lots of smart young science graduates who would love a career in publishing (and their jacket blurbs would avoid egregious howlers like calling Darwinism the ‘idea that chance is the mechanism of evolution.’).” Well, that may have come from some or another version of a dust jacket (to Milton’s book?) but did not come from within Milton’s book.
Richard Dawkins also recommend doing what “proper publishers do and send the stuff out to referees.” Again, he knows nothing about Milton’s publisher but they are not “proper” because they do not “send the stuff out to referees” even though he does not know whether or not they “send the stuff out to referees.” Also, years’ worth of evidence have resulted in the conclusion that referee does not mean infallible and many referees will only referees those writing with which they already agree and censor those with which they do not (consider the case of Jonathan Wells who had a paper on embryology, he is an embryologist, refused publication not due to its content but due to an ad hominem: the paper went through the peer review referees and was approved for publication but then they found out that it was written by one of those people as Wells is a proponent of Intelligent Design even though the paper said nothing about design).
Dawkins then offers that “You might also glance for a second at the credentials of the author. If he is an unknown journalist, innocent of qualifications to write his book, you don’t have to reject it out of hand but you might be more than usually anxious to show it to referees who do have some credentials.” Of course, Dawkins seems to assume that “unknown” to him means “unknown” in general.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.