“Outside the laboratory, scientists are no wiser than anyone else.”
My doctor can’t program his VCR. My accountant can barely dress himself. My mechanic can’t operate a computer. This may seem like a problem to some people, but I recognize that specialization is a good thing. I am not surprised when Nobel winners wear mis-matched socks. The degree of specialization required to excel at that level requires sacrifices in other areas of life. Said another way, a generalist who is equally good at everything will never win a Nobel, or bat .300 in the majors, or release a platinum record.
That’s not an excuse for ignoring basic logic outside of laboratory. But I’m not going to ask you, mister scientist, to babysit my kids or do my taxes. I’m going to hire specialists in those fields when I need those services.
I must admit that I did not follow all of the comments about the application of this experiment standard or that mathematical hypothesis of probability. I’m a BA, not a BS, for a reason. I understand that there is a place for the rigors of scientific investigation. I am pleased that you folks know that stuff, and I’m glad that you openly debate when and where it is applicable. But that is not how I want to spend my time.
Do you recognize that you are an animal? You have emotions and drives that are not subject to logical argument. Some people have more logical control than others. You are arguing in favor of total logical control—no emotions, no whims, no taste, no fun for it’s own sake, no mistakes.
But a goal of 100% logical control is not desirable. Such a person would be less than a robot. They would have no vices, except unbridled selfishness. But they would have no real virtues either. They would have no compassion that wasn’t clearly calculated to benefit themselves. They would be the ultimate free-rider, using all available resources to please only themselves.
Don’t tell me that you choose to recycle based upon logical reasons alone. You can’t possibly believe that the ecological damage caused by your household waste will generate greater than zero impact on your appreciation of nature throughout your life.
Outside of the laboratory humans live in community. We interact with and effect each other. We don’t get to make perfect decisions designed for our own optimal outcomes because there are other people involved. People have needs and wants that just aren’t easily quantifiable. The group often has needs that the individual should accept as overriding, for the sake of living in community. And there is no accounting for taste. These things are a large part of what makes us human.
Having said all of that, I’m not going to bother arguing the value of spirituality or the possibility of the existence of God. I may be a touchy-feely-type, but I recognize when I would be wasting my time.
“Outside the laboratory, scientists are no wiser than anyone else.”
My doctor can’t program his VCR. My accountant can barely dress himself. My mechanic can’t operate a computer. This may seem like a problem to some people, but I recognize that specialization is a good thing. I am not surprised when Nobel winners wear mis-matched socks. The degree of specialization required to excel at that level requires sacrifices in other areas of life. Said another way, a generalist who is equally good at everything will never win a Nobel, or bat .300 in the majors, or release a platinum record.
That’s not an excuse for ignoring basic logic outside of laboratory. But I’m not going to ask you, mister scientist, to babysit my kids or do my taxes. I’m going to hire specialists in those fields when I need those services.
I must admit that I did not follow all of the comments about the application of this experiment standard or that mathematical hypothesis of probability. I’m a BA, not a BS, for a reason. I understand that there is a place for the rigors of scientific investigation. I am pleased that you folks know that stuff, and I’m glad that you openly debate when and where it is applicable. But that is not how I want to spend my time.
Do you recognize that you are an animal? You have emotions and drives that are not subject to logical argument. Some people have more logical control than others. You are arguing in favor of total logical control—no emotions, no whims, no taste, no fun for it’s own sake, no mistakes.
But a goal of 100% logical control is not desirable. Such a person would be less than a robot. They would have no vices, except unbridled selfishness. But they would have no real virtues either. They would have no compassion that wasn’t clearly calculated to benefit themselves. They would be the ultimate free-rider, using all available resources to please only themselves.
Don’t tell me that you choose to recycle based upon logical reasons alone. You can’t possibly believe that the ecological damage caused by your household waste will generate greater than zero impact on your appreciation of nature throughout your life.
Outside of the laboratory humans live in community. We interact with and effect each other. We don’t get to make perfect decisions designed for our own optimal outcomes because there are other people involved. People have needs and wants that just aren’t easily quantifiable. The group often has needs that the individual should accept as overriding, for the sake of living in community. And there is no accounting for taste. These things are a large part of what makes us human.
Having said all of that, I’m not going to bother arguing the value of spirituality or the possibility of the existence of God. I may be a touchy-feely-type, but I recognize when I would be wasting my time.