A classic +1SD critique

This example, courtesy of a commentator at TBR.cc is exactly the sort of thing I was describing yesterday when I wrote about how the intelligent who are incapable of following the arguments contructed by the superlatively intelligent insist on embarrassing themselves by reacting to those arguments as if they were made by the unintelligent… or, apparently, nonexistent.

Vox Day is calling someone else a psuedoscientist? That’s truly rich. Someday, Vox Day is going to put together a coherent argument aside from just sneering and bickering, and I’m going to have to celebrate that day as real achievement in human progress.

So, let’s break down the argument from today’s column as it applies to Richard Dawkins and see if it is coherent or merely sneering and bickering.

1. Richard Dawkins was a scientist of some reknown in the past.
2. Richard Dawkins is no longer professionally engaged in the use of the scientific method, but is now paid to use his fame and talents to popularize science.
3. Richard Dawkins has declared that although he is professionally pro-science (defining Darwinism as one of the most important aspects of science), he is anti-science with regards to Man’s behavior and socio-political structures.
4. Richard Dawkins latest book, “The God Delusion”, primarily concerns Man’s beliefs, behavior and social mores and Dawkins’s own beliefs and recommendations concerning those things. There are virtually no examples of any conventional elements of the scientific method such as observation or evidence, or even citation of scientific studies, regarding the assertions made in the book.
5. However, “The God Delusion” is marketed and sold with scientific trappings and on the sole basis of Dawkins’s reputation as a scientist, not a philosopher, political writer or theologian.
6. Pseudo-science describes that which is not science and is falsely billed as genuine science.
7. Therefore, Richard Dawkins is currently engaged in pseudo-science, even worse, he is prostituting science on behalf of his personal faith in secular humanism. That means that at this moment, he is no longer acting as a scientist, but rather as a former scientist and pseudo-scientist. Or, if you prefer, as science’s abusive pimp.

Now, you can take exception to any of the six points or the conclusion. Perhaps you can even show me where and how I am wrong. What you cannot reasonably do is to deny that a coherent argument has been made. I invite Plunge to investigate this argument and inform everyone precisely how it is incoherent, or even incorrect.

Besides, we settled this some time ago with the help of our friends in the science community. I am presently a scientist in good standing.