I apologize for responding to this where you are highly unlikely to see … but you seem to be missing an essential point. It is not necessary to understand science to do science any more than it is necessary to understand control theory to balance on one leg. What is disappointing is that even the population of scientists—who would appear the most likely to understand science—make errors that demonstrate that they do not.
Even so, we rationalists ought not to be deterred from improving our minds by their failure to. That would be an improper use of humility.
I apologize for responding to this where you are highly unlikely to see … but you seem to be missing an essential point. It is not necessary to understand science to do science any more than it is necessary to understand control theory to balance on one leg. What is disappointing is that even the population of scientists—who would appear the most likely to understand science—make errors that demonstrate that they do not.
Even so, we rationalists ought not to be deterred from improving our minds by their failure to. That would be an improper use of humility.
Comments like the parent are the reason I’m glad we don’t have a norm against responding to ancient comments.
Indeed.