[FoRK] Faith and/or Science dingding redux

[J. Andrew Rogers]

On Nov 28, 2007, at 8:42 AM, Jeff Bone wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
>> I think, though, that it is a fair point to make that
>> science-as-critical-thought-process is not usually what is taught in
>> school- what is taught, usually, is science-as-received-fact.
>
> +1, that's entirely fair.  And I think there's an ENORMOUS amount of  
> popular confusion about and between those two different things;  the  
> common layman's perception of science seems to be entirely the  
> latter, and further those received facts are perceived as  
> epistemologically no different than other forms of "received fact"  
> such as religious "fact."  (I don't think there *should be* any such  
> confusion on this list, though...)
>
> To be clear, though, that sort of "science-as-received-fact" is not  
> really science, is it?


One of things that is very apparent in the creationism (excuse me,  
"intelligent design") versus evolution political née religious battles  
is that most of the nominal "evolution supporters" understand  
evolution about as well as the creationists.  It isn't about good  
science, it is about supporting the team and many of those  
"evolutionists" would have been a happy cretard given a slightly  
different set of initial conditions.  Science is a political football  
for idiots of all stripes while that minority that actually approaches  
these issues with a scientific mindset just shake their heads at the  
spectacle of it all.

Most people support the side of legitimate scientific consensus by  
chance.  These beliefs are not selected on the basis of best  
hypothesis given the data available but whether it supports some other  
monkey goal, explict or implicit, that they have -- that is all the  
reason they need.  The best rational, scientifically-minded people can  
do is play one large group of idiots against another and hope that the  
outcome is roughly favorable to a rational, scientific perspective.

It may not be science, but for the purposes of politics it *is* science.


J. Andrew Rogers