Science (unlike religion) has proved its myths
See, this is exactly the sort of thing I have a problem with. Science is not just magic that works. People are learning science as though it were merely a true religion: passwords, attire, professions, and all.
And I agree, that’s terrible. Maybe I wasn’t clear in my post: it’s a disaster for people to learn science as magic. But for people who won’t learn it, for whatever reason, then “science as magic that works” is a sensible view that gives them a cheap tool to assess scientific claims.
But even for people learning science, the fact that “science works” is still critical. That needs to come before anything else. Building models and making them pay for inaccuracies is the correct thing to do… because it works. This is a feature of our world. If our world were run as a huge morality tale by a new testament god with low-brow litterary tastes, then advanced model-building wouldn’t work and doing so would be the wrong thing to do. Scientists in that world would be just a Pythagorean sect, proposing a way of doing stuff that didn’t lead to anything. We need to have some indication that we are not in that sort of world, before we decide to learn the scientific method. The fact that science “put men on the moon” is such an indication.
Then, once we accept that science and rationality work, and decide to study them… that is the moment to put all thoughts of magic away.
The press has reports with things like “scientists attack creationist teachings”, but I’ve never seen “scientists attack common misconceptions about evolutionary theory”.
Press selectivity. Trust me, they do.
I know they do, I don’t lack biologists among my friends. I’ve even been in that position myself, trying to inject a proper understanding of evolution into the heads of people whose reasonings are “Telepathy would be useful (and Star Trek has it), so we will soon evolve it”.
But if people have no true understanding of the scientific process (and no desire or need to learn more) then the most accurate picture they can get, for the least effort, is defering to popular press articles on scientific discoveries.
I wasn’t aware that speech, empathy, and social skills were functions of the kidneys rather than the brain.
Never implied they were. But they’re definetly not rational thinking, according to the definition you’re been using. But this is far away from the main discussion, anyway.
Science (unlike religion) has proved its myths See, this is exactly the sort of thing I have a problem with. Science is not just magic that works. People are learning science as though it were merely a true religion: passwords, attire, professions, and all.
And I agree, that’s terrible. Maybe I wasn’t clear in my post: it’s a disaster for people to learn science as magic. But for people who won’t learn it, for whatever reason, then “science as magic that works” is a sensible view that gives them a cheap tool to assess scientific claims.
But even for people learning science, the fact that “science works” is still critical. That needs to come before anything else. Building models and making them pay for inaccuracies is the correct thing to do… because it works. This is a feature of our world. If our world were run as a huge morality tale by a new testament god with low-brow litterary tastes, then advanced model-building wouldn’t work and doing so would be the wrong thing to do. Scientists in that world would be just a Pythagorean sect, proposing a way of doing stuff that didn’t lead to anything. We need to have some indication that we are not in that sort of world, before we decide to learn the scientific method. The fact that science “put men on the moon” is such an indication.
Then, once we accept that science and rationality work, and decide to study them… that is the moment to put all thoughts of magic away.
The press has reports with things like “scientists attack creationist teachings”, but I’ve never seen “scientists attack common misconceptions about evolutionary theory”. Press selectivity. Trust me, they do.
I know they do, I don’t lack biologists among my friends. I’ve even been in that position myself, trying to inject a proper understanding of evolution into the heads of people whose reasonings are “Telepathy would be useful (and Star Trek has it), so we will soon evolve it”.
But if people have no true understanding of the scientific process (and no desire or need to learn more) then the most accurate picture they can get, for the least effort, is defering to popular press articles on scientific discoveries.
I wasn’t aware that speech, empathy, and social skills were functions of the kidneys rather than the brain. Never implied they were. But they’re definetly not rational thinking, according to the definition you’re been using. But this is far away from the main discussion, anyway.