71–80 of 402 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the US a huge number of people (large enough to be dangerous) reject climate change consensus You just proved the parent's point...
How so?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is the common man supposed to know that there isn't anything strange in the vaccine? Governments have forcibly sterilised segments of their population before.
Ask your doctor about it instead of listening to a Facebook group.
(Also vaccinate your kids dammit)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That wouldn't be a step up over religion, that would just be religion.
Religion and science derive understanding about the world in fundamentaly different and incompatible ways. To call it religion is just incorrect.
Perhaps you can find something analogous to this structure in psychology, but I just don't see it in the rest of the scientific landscape.
The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo. Think of the way people are castigated for not believing in scientific "truths". I see signs in peoples yard saying that "in this house, we believe science is real". As someone who has studied biochemistry for years, this kind of reverence for science is truly troubling. The one…
People may confuse believing in the scientific method for believing in the current scientific consensus, which as you point out is fluid. However, for the average person, a dogmatic belief in the scientific method would be a huge step up over religion.
Scientific methods differ a lot between the sciences - especially between the physical and special sciences, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can hit your kid, why can't I also hit my dog?
People use shock collars(physical pain as punishment) on their dog all the time and there are large dog training companies built around this modality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People may confuse believing in the scientific method for believing in the current scientific consensus, which as you point out is fluid. However, for the average person, a dogmatic belief in the scientific method would be a huge step up over religion.
A dogmatic belief in anything is detrimental. It takes wisdom to understand this. Many followers of science lack this. Scientific method is a great tool - for the type of questions that it is designed to deal with - and a disaster waiting to happen if used for other areas of inquiry.
What other areas of inquiry would that be?
I agree with the author that the public perception of science today is in a sorry state, but I don't think that a heightened reverence for authority (of any sort) is the way out. We design our scientific curriculum based on the philosophy of Popper, who was all about the scientific method. We teach that there are rules which lead to progress. There are counterpoints to Popper that don't appear in the modern curriculu…
That's easy: the ones that are confirmed by experiments.
Feyerabend was correct in calling science "anarchic" in that there is not one "scientific method" that will always point you at the right facts. Scientists do whatever works.
But Feyerabend was wrong in thinking that, because of that, "all facts are alternative facts". It is possible to establish facts. You do that by experiments. It's just that there's no rule that will tell you in every case which experiments to do. You have to figure it out each time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you lead a child by the arm against their will, is this tantamount to physical violence or no? If we're busy redefining what is the acceptable behavior in parenting, we better discuss this all the way to the limits.
You sound like you're being sarcastic, but I can't be sure. It sounds like you think the premise is ridiculous, but your second sentence is totally reasonable - of course we should discuss all aspects of a topic. Again, I'm not sure if your first question was honest or not, but answering it is straightforward and I think you'll find only extreme minorities of opposing opinions: Leading forcibly by the arm may be obje…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Religion and science derive understanding about the world in fundamentaly different and incompatible ways. To call it religion is just incorrect.
Fundamentally, I see religion as an enterprise that defines the structure of existence (metaphysics), explains how humans in their "base state" are deficient within that structure, to their detriment and that of others, and finally establishes elaborate practices for addressing the deficiency. Perhaps you can find something analogous to this structure in psychology, but I just don't see it in the rest of the scientif…
I will agree that I don't see this structure elsewhere in science...
The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo. Think of the way people are castigated for not believing in scientific "truths". I see signs in peoples yard saying that "in this house, we believe science is real". As someone who has studied biochemistry for years, this kind of reverence for science is truly troubling. The one…
Episteme is always political once it gets societal acceptance and there is little difference between it and doxa. Techné is what actually does all the work and though you can find how to do it through episteme or doxa, it does not actually depend on them -- it does not matter what you believe as long as you know how to do something. At the end of the day humans really only have techné, everything else is political...…
At the end of the day, as usual, those things aren't as much independent entities as classical ideas leads one to believe.