a lot of the new cults are Atheist cults. some of Dawkins’ followers are quasi-cultists, use harassment and shoddy inferior argumentation. no wonder since Dawkins frequently uses fanciful ahistorical notions such as that “science is the best way to do anything.” (that’s a literal quote.) that someone so educated would make a claim like this is ridiculous. that’s not what science even means. “a way to do any and every thing”, nope. that’s not what science is. likely ~ 99% of the world’s people do not read research publications on sex to have great sex. there’s no evidence of those who have the best sex of having based than on science. that claim Dawkins makes is itself pseudoscientific. he made a thoroughly pseudoscientific claim. is someone paying him to make a fool of himself? science is a research method—it’s impossible to do *most things” scientifically, because typically science is to *study* things perioperatively in a limited way, and then exist as a database to seek knowledge in for experimentation. most things we do are nonscientific. science is a type of measure, it is not all measure. all quantification is not science, because it’s more fundamental than science, and even animals do quantification and navigation that is far more protean than science. science is not instinct. we learn to walk by instinct. even before walking we navigate environments, kinetically transferring ourselves through crawling. science does nothing to that but measure that in a limited but expanding sense. infants learn to walk by themselves, and for most people to try to interfere in that inspired by Science would be likely griveously harmful. sex, most know through instinct. what the hell is wrong with Dawkins? is he just out to make money? does he get enthusiastic but scientific blowjobs from Atheist followers?
it’s especially bad about Dawkins that he was actually a scientist, that he’d make such as pseudoscientific claim like “science is the best way to do anything.”
*even devised things* such as writing was an art for thousands of years before science. mapping, only became scientific quite recently. fashion, overall prescientific except in its most latest trends which may use science to make money. drawing, probably much older than writing. generally no one cites science qua science as a way to learn drawing or painting, as it’s something more primitive and exists in prescientific societies around the globe. etc. etc. etc.
sure, applying science to map is the best way—but when it comes to dancing, it’s not really to do with the scientific method. it’s not taught at dance classes, and dancers do not cite it. probably almost no dancer has cited the scientific method as how she became such a dancer. what Dawkins does is reduce all rigor or training to science. he in doing that contradicts himself, because he might at an other occasion tell you that tribal dancing is not scientific.
he’s a freaking pseudo-intellectual that does not realise the shallowness of his own arguments.