Congrats, and stuff

Where on Earth are you getting the idea that Dawkins thinks good science writing can only be done by scientists? The blog entry you linked to harps on Dawkins' statetment that, “This is a collection of good science writing by professional scientists, not excursions into science by professional writers.” I see nothing snide or dismissive in that, and I'd be very surprised if Dawkins meant it to be taken that way. I saw a simple statement of fact about what sort of anthology he produced.

When I first got a copy of the book I was surprised and annoyed that it contained nothing by Isaac Asimov. After reading the introduction I understood why Dawkins had left him out. It never even occurred to me to read anything more into the introduction than that.

Hrmm...As someone who has 'done', and would like to do more science, and is trying to study science communication, I am feeling less and less qualified to write about science...
Or maybe its studying philosophy of science that is leading me astray.
Which ever way you look at it, I think there can be such a thing as looking at a problem from too many points of view, in terms of productivity.

Jason, perhaps it seems inadvertent, or that it just happened that scientific writers are all scientists in that book, but the mere fact that only scientists were chosen is, I think, telling. Only a few scientists are writers on the order of Ed Wilson or Frans de Waal. Most cannot write to save their lives. Generally, the best scientific writing is done by those who make their living that way - Carl Zimmer being the obvious local identity, but David Quammen is an equally good example.

But maybe you are right and it is best not to make too much of it.

scientists like Dawkins who think good science writing can only be done by scientists

So should we expect Dawkins to start telling Daniel Dennett not to write on evolution any more?

Why do I think "fertilizing inputs" is a particularly apropropriate description?

You know, there's a sense in which ethicists should be "unethical", moral philosophers should be "immoral", etc. Our role is not to conform to whatever conventional moral code our society has inherited, much less to support it. Our role is to investigate, attempt to understand, and and if necessary even debunk, the phenomenon of morality.

I think I agree with you on that, Russell, but it is interesting how many ethicists end up supporting the conventional morality anyway. Or going as far in the other direction as they can.

Oh, for the love of. . . . I've got Dawkins's anthology right on my desk. Here's the paragraph, the full paragraph, whose first sentence has caused so much strife:

This is a collection of good writing by professional scientists, not excursions into science by professional writers. Another difference from John Carey's admirable Faber Book of Science is that we go back only one century. Within that century, no attempt was made to arrange the pieces chronologically. Instead, the selections fall roughly into four themes, although some of the entries could have fitted into more than one of those divisions. My biggest regret concerns the number of excellent scientists that I have had to leave out, for reasons of space. I would apologize to them, did I not suspect that my own pain at their omission is greater than theirs. The collection is limited to the English language and, with very few exceptions, I have omitted translations from books originally composed in other languages.

Bold emphasis mine. If a book edited on different principles is, I quote, "admirable", then what exactly is the problem?