At around 22/6/06 11:00 am, Jim Devine wrote:
>
> C'mon! what we need is _more_ scientific thinking, not less.
> (Scientific thinking says, among other things, that a lot what science
> believes may not be true.)
>
Could you expand on the parenthetical comment? Scientific thinking, more
so than any other practice, seems to me to depend on the
consistency/truth of its axioms and prior results, than other types of
thinking. My mother is always aware of the fact that her notions and
practices could be entirely wrong. Hence the kindness of mothers ;-) and
the arrogance of scientists. When some evidence surfaces to question a
scientific theory or practice, it causes a "[foundational] crisis".
> There's no reason why we should emulate the
> Bush League's antagonism toward science that doesn't fit their
> political and economic goals.
I agree. I think we should be antagonistic towards science at all times.
It is one of the greatest dangers (next only to conservatism, perhaps)
facing [freedoms and dignity of] the common person and his/her community.
--ravi
--
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
