Revisiting Richard Dawkins: Unanswered Questions and Reflections on Consciousness and Scientific Inquiry

If given the opportunity to ask one question to Richard Dawkins, I'd be tempted to delve deep into the mysteries of consciousness and evolution. Specifically, I would ask:

Where Does Consciousness Begin and End?

Richard Dawkins is renowned for his depth of knowledge in evolutionary biology and his atheistic views. However, these hypotheses and scientific methodologies often raise questions that delve into existential and metaphysical realms. A fascinating inquiry would be to explore where consciousness begins and ends. If animals possess consciousness, similar to our own, does it stretch back in time and evolution? Others have pondered whether rocks, earth, and even the universe itself could be conscious. Is consciousness a fundamental aspect of life, or is it something more complex?

Cracked Fossils: The Evolution of Whales

Another intriguing query would be the fossil record of whale evolution. Given that whales evolved from Pakicetus, and the fossil record is a chronicle of evolutionary branches, one could speculate about the number of intermediates. Assuming the fossil record is akin to photo albums revealing evolutionary transitions, is it feasible to expect to find millions of fossils that represent the progression from Pakicetus to whales?

Scientific Self-Rectification and Ethical Issues

While Dawkins is applauded for his contributions to science, the scientific community has faced numerous challenges regarding its own practices and ethics. Ethical and self-correcting mechanisms within science are an ongoing concern. Here are some impolite questions that could shed light on this:

Did you ever imagine all this would happen when you were writing The Selfish Gene all those years ago? If science is such a fabulously self-correcting and special thing, how come those blokes who started the Retraction Watch blog were so surprised when the phenomena took off in a huge way, and they had to hire staff and expand their work? How come a small number of doctors saw the need to invent evidence-based medicine many decades ago because medical science wasn't based on evidence at all? How could the science of psychology have been facing a reproducibility crisis if science was judged to have been truly self-correcting before post-publication peer review took off? Why does peer review have to occur after publication if the much-hyped pre-publication peer review processes actually worked reliably?

These questions touch on the broader ethical implications and self-corrective mechanisms within the scientific community, raising critical aspects of how we navigate and trust scientific research.

While meeting Dawkins in person would be an honor, financial constraints often limit such opportunities. Nevertheless, engaging with these complex questions can lead to deeper understanding and critical reflection on the very foundations of science and consciousness.