In this failure, mode science works more or less like religion. There’s
In this failure mode, science works more or less like religion. There’s
There’s a difference between science and “science”. (In this case, schools != science. And it’s not obvious why there would be a relation—the process of absorbing ‘knowledge’ or ‘information’ need not be conducted any differently between truth and falsehood.)
However, young-earth creationism is not the only unscientific belief system people have, there are insane conspiracy theories aplenty, from vaccines being brainwashing mechanisms or 5G causing viral infections.
What makes a belief unscientific?
doctor’s boos
boss
He lacked was a
What he lacked was/He lacked a
I will grant I might be straw-manning Aristotle here, he would have been able to ask some of those questions, he just didn’t have a rigorous frameworks from which to derive them. He was working from Aristotelian logic and intuition.
Close—he was working from his own logic and intuition. (If he learned ‘other’ ‘systems’ from other people that might be relevant.)
Replicative lab work in college requires proving that existing theories and observations are true, even though real replication should be focused on the exact opposite.
Or seeing under what conditions they do and don’t hold, but yes.
Perhaps some day this (A) will be seen the same way as (B).
[A]
The fact most people don’t have any basis for their ethics system and just learn it “religiously” from their peer group is a feature, not a bug. If people were convinced going around killing people is ok until they could understand and found a reasonable ethical system that discourages murder society couldn’t exist.
[B]
On the other hand, a 14-year-old is probably not capable of scientific discovery, he would just be rediscovering obvious things people already know. So we see it as pointless to tell him “go out and do science the right way” if all the information produced is already known. I harp on about this more in Training our humans on the wrong dataset… so I won’t restate that entire point, suffice to say, I think this is a horrible mistake.
The only way to teach people how to do science, to teach them how science works, and to get new and interesting discoveries that break out of the current zeitgeist… is to have them do it. Ideally have them do so starting at age 10, not at age 30. Ideally have 100% of the population doing it, even if just for the sake of understanding the process. Otherwise you end up with people that are rightfully confused as to what the difference between science and religion is.
But I think the issue goes even further:
Does the world lose out because people aren’t running around committing murder? Doesn’t seem like it. But whether or not you think ‘widespread morality has issues’ it seems worth noting that not everyone is ‘moral’. Perhaps this is related to the way ‘ethics’ is understood.
Otherwise you end up with people that are rightfully confused as to what the difference between [what is right] and [what is popular/authority says] is [- or that there exists ‘what is right’ as separate from that.]
In this failure mode, science works more or less like religion. There’s
There’s a difference between science and “science”. (In this case, schools != science. And it’s not obvious why there would be a relation—the process of absorbing ‘knowledge’ or ‘information’ need not be conducted any differently between truth and falsehood.)
What makes a belief unscientific?
boss
What he lacked was/He lacked a
Close—he was working from his own logic and intuition. (If he learned ‘other’ ‘systems’ from other people that might be relevant.)
Or seeing under what conditions they do and don’t hold, but yes.
Perhaps some day this (A) will be seen the same way as (B).
Does the world lose out because people aren’t running around committing murder? Doesn’t seem like it. But whether or not you think ‘widespread morality has issues’ it seems worth noting that not everyone is ‘moral’. Perhaps this is related to the way ‘ethics’ is understood.
.