There's an annoying tendency for academics to believe that, because they are expertly trained and experienced in one field of study, they are qualified to comment upon every other field of study.

I have no idea where they get it from. I have some passing familiarity with a very broad swatch of the sciences as a result of the needs of my own field of study, so I can generally spot obvious bullshit, but I'll insist I know better than an actual professional expert in the field. I'll, at most, ask questions when something seems to go against what I think I know.

Dawkins is quite studied in biology and moderately good with philosophy, but the man clearly doesn't understand mathematical association pattern logic in the slightest. And it's actually really funny to see him forget everything he's cautioned against vis a vis personifying mechanistic phenomena and go "the beep boop is aware, I know it!".