Dispute On The Templeton Foundation (incl. Michael Shermer) – Sir Harold Kroto @ The Science Network
Posted by admin in Finance Sunday, 5 December 2010 11:21 25 Comments
Best Atheist Experience clips & chat: • tinyurl.com Dispute On The John Templeton Foundation [including Michael Shermer (Skeptic Magazine), Jonathan Haidt (University of Virginia), Sean Carroll (California Institute of Technology)] – Sir Harold Kroto @ The Science Network – Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0 Subscribe to Science & Reason: • www.youtube.com • www.youtube.com • www.youtube.com • www.youtube.com • www.youtube.com • www.youtube.com Sir Harold KROTO, Chairman of the Board of the Vega Science Trust, a UK educational charity that produces science programs for television, in 1996 shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry with Robert Curl and Richard Smalley for the discovery of a new form of carbon, the C60 Buckminsterfullerene. He has received the Royal Society’s prestigious Michael Faraday Award, given annually to a scientist who has done the most to further public communication of science, engineering or technology in the United Kingdom. The John TEMPLETON Foundation was established in 1987 by the late investor and philanthropist Sir John Templeton; the current president is his son John M. Templeton, Jr. It is usually referred to simply as the Templeton Foundation. The mission of the Templeton Foundation is to serve as a philanthropic catalyst for discovery in areas engaging life’s biggest questions. These questions range from explorations into the laws of nature and the universe to questions on the nature of love, gratitude, forgiveness, and creativity. Our vision is …
…cont
The fact that ‘you do this too’ is only bringing yourself down; it doesn’t justify one damn thing about what Shermer does.
“He shouldn’t have hit that guy simply for calling him a jerk”
“I would have hit too, so it is ok”
NO, no its not ok just because you would do the same.
@pillsareyummy
“thus he should have waited for Shermer to conclude his rebuttal.”
Dude, this is old, in the SPECIFIC portion I reference Shermer is not attempting to ‘conclude” anything; he is childishly interrupting the speaker as THE SPEAKER attempts to re-butt Shermer.
The substance is moot at that point; Shermer’s behavior is all that is being criticized. I said in my first post, Shermer made a GOOD point. He ruined his personal credibility with his behavior
cont…
@pillsareyummy
“Shermer does act like an ass at times, and so do many others including myself, when faced with BS”
Ok, as long as you acknowledge that.
“When faced with BS,” it is your job to refute it with reason & logic. If you want to intentionally interrupt someone, while not providing any new information, you need to know you look like a child & it seems you have something to fear from the speaker. Whether that is true is irrelevant, as to onlookers, this is the message
@Hopeful71 I’m not defending anybody. Shermer does act like an ass at times, and so do many others including myself, when faced with BS. The lecturer seemed to be squirming his way out, Shermer wasn’t letting him get away with that. Also, it DOES matter that Shermer was responding to what the lecture said, since the lecturer already stated his point, at lenght, thus he should have waited for Shermer to conclude his rebuttal.
@pillsareyummy
“They BOTH were talking over each other… when I debate I’m guilty of the same thing”
You seem dead set on defending Shermer’s mistake. It doesn’t matter what the speaker did 10 minutes prior. In that exchange, Shermer was a child. If you can’t keep a cool head in a debate then that is on you & you will lose points in the eyes of onlookers. Justifying it after-the-fact doesn’t excuse it. Equivocating ‘emotional’ to behaving like as ass doesn’t change it either
@Hopeful71 As I said, the lecturer had already stated his point, that Shermer was responding to, so he (the lecturer) should have let Shermer complete is rebuttal in full before replying. Look mate (or miss), Shermer is the type of person that can be quiet combative in debates, however, the lecturer wasn’t any different. They BOTH were talking over each other. I can’t speak for you, however, when I debate I’m guilty of the same thing, I think most are when we become emotional.
@pillsareyummy
I got the time, start at 3:40 & watch for 30 seconds. Shermer is the one not letting the speaker respond. I said he made a good point but to then follow that up with his childish interrupting has no excuse. “Being human” is a justification, he behaved like an ass. “Being emotional” is an even worse justification.Throw the mic, stick fingers in my ears…I am just ‘being emotional’
He was BEHAVING LIKE A CHILD; an “emotional” child.
I expect better
@Hopeful71 No, I think it’s you that has it backwards, I watched this lecture (full version) a while ago, and from what I remember Shermer was commenting on something the speaker had said, either in the lecture, or during the Q&A segment. The lecturer wouldn’t let him finish his rebuttal (he, not shermer, was doing most of the interrupting). Also, when people debate, they can become emotional, as SHermer clearly was. That’s not being childish, that being ‘human’.
@pillsareyummy
Watch it again. He is not ‘speaking his mind,’ he is repeating “You’re wrong” over & over again as the speaker was trying to respond to the point.
“You’re wrong” X4 is not “speaking his mind.” He hits a “you’re wrong” everytime the speaker gets two words out; “Well, I”….”YOU’RE WRONG!” *PAUSE* “No, I”….”YOU’RE WRONG!”
You have it exactly backwards & Shermer is behaving like an petulant child. He should be embarrassed
@Hopeful71 Shermer didn’t act `childish`, he was simply trying to speak his mind, while the speaker kept trying to speak over him.
Wow, around 3:40 Shermer made a solid & good point but then became like a child in not allowing the speaker to respond. Almost sad to witness that kind of childishness
Shermer failed to disclose that he actually has a relation with Templeton, given that he has conducted interviews for them as can be seen right here on youtube on the Templeton channel. That was not a non-partisan critique. Same for Jon Haidt, has spoken out against vocal atheism, very much in line with that Templeton likes as a message hence he gets funded and claims there are no strings attached. Well clearly they select people whose attitude they like! We call it selection bias.
For those interested in seeing Shermer having his ass handed to him by the brilliant and far more “Bright” Stephen C. Meyer, check out my profile. Once you see the intellectual beatdown Meyer gives him you’ll never look at Shermer the same again.
Thanks
Michael Shermer is completely right. The Templeton Foundation is an organization that is solely dedicated to finding and funding science and scientists that do or COULD support religion. That being said, there is no evidence of them corrupting the scientific process through their funding. As Shermer pointed out, they funded the biggest prayer-healing study ever done, collected and analyzed the data, and published it DESPITE the fact it proved prayer DOESN’T heal. Kroto should apologize.
If you ever want to discredit something without using your brain just compare it to Nazism.
No scientist knows s/he’s right 100%. That wuold be a profoundly unscientific position to take.
Well aren’t we a happy bunch of NOMAphiles
The Templeton Foundation sent letters to almost every school in the UK inviting them to order thier pro-creationism course material!
Shermer, check yer facts mate.
The guy at the end is criticizing the Foundation for funding a Nobel Prize winner to speak because that winner says he believes his research points to God? That’s pathetic. If you can put up 100 guys who says it doesn’t point to God, you can put up a Nobel prize winner who says it does. We need to see some more confidence in their ideas from the atheists who know 100% they’re right.
who/what is this templeton foundation they speak of. i must find out more.
Why shouldn’t scientists be involved in these questions?? Dawkins is a evolutionary biologist and creationists is teaching kids evolution is a myth. This is most certainly something scientists as “authorities” in science should oppose.
This is true and it is both silly and sad that scientist have to do this. It sucks that we all have to argue with the ignorant , but unfortunately a lot of these religious people make a lot of the “rules” and lead many astray and teach them to be ignorant. The religious are easily controlled and are slaves to there myths. We have to confront these issues on a psychological level, all the while do our part in scientific advancement.
“Where can I find OBJECTIVE information about The Templeton Foundation.”
The most objective opinion will be your own, so you may want to start on their own webpage, and decide what you think.
At the same time, though, I think it’s possible to be both a scientist and a philosopher. It takes both, to some extent, to further either field.
The process of science carries its own mechanism which checks and balances the bias and “agenda” of individual scientists. That’s what makes science more credible than an authority or a zealot.