Dalai's Pardon

Mark Kleiman is mad, mad, mad that neuroscientists would dare try to block the Dalai Lama from giving a talk at a neuroscience conference. Kleiman (by incorporation of a reader's comments) even calls the objectors "anti-religious bigots." Strong words.

Yet, had it been biologists organizing a boycott of Michael Behe at a conference on evolution, surely Kleiman (his perplexing charitability to fiction-based lay fans of ID notwithstanding) would have commended these biologists' concern that such an appearance would confuse an already scientifically confused public by "highlight[ing] a subject with hyperbolic claims, limited research and compromised scientific rigour."

And Behe's training in biology is significant, whereas the Dalai has no training in neuroscience whatever. Which makes it at least plausible that objectors just didn't see much intellectual worth, and indeed saw significant pedagogical harm, in inviting a nonexpert to lecture them and the public about their subject. So if that's "bigotry," it's a form I can respect.

UPDATE: Mark responds in an update to this post.

The distinction he marks is  sound, but its relevance is arguable ("doing research" is just as contentious a concept in this context as "doing science"), relies on a questionable notion of "scientific collaboration," and in any case  doesn't address my second point, which was that the Dalai's lack of professional competence, along with certain possible pedagogical and public relations implications, would have been legitimate grounds for opposing his addressing this crowd in this forum (which is not to say there were no legitimate grounds for supporting his address). For that reason, I think Mark's inference that "bigotry" was the only (or even the primary) motive behind said opposition is overstated,  even grossly so.  (Maybe Mark's privy to some information I don't have, but there is nothing in the article he actually pointed to that even remotely supports this charge.)

And, hey, I like the Dalai, okay?