The New Zealand Herald does a hit job on Dawkins
&gt; accusing the whole New Zealand academic establishment—and the seven Auckland Uni professors who, in the infamous Listener letter, said that MM was not equivalent to science—of being riddled with racism.<p>I was a junior when I first grasped the concept of repeatable experiments, and my career wasn&#x27;t even in science. I remember being blown away by the profoundness of it. Such a simple yet powerful idea in order to reliably predict your surroundings. You would be hard pressed to find another way of doing so. It is a beautiful concept when you think about it, and arguably the greatest achievement of the human race.<p>Now, how does someone with a PhD simply not get what the scientific method is about? Like every single thing you have studied, your entire career, your achievements are all based on the scientific method. Is it really possible to go through the ranks, even do a PhD, without really having a basic understanding of the philosophy of science?