I have no problem with teachers explaining to students the ways in which literalist creation theories do not fit the evidence we have. But then, that is not the kind of teaching Feyerabend would approve of.
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
(a) recognise that science does have a special epistemological status (compared to other human enterprises)
But this is what Feyerabend denies. Do you disagree with him?
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
But this is what Feyerabend denies. Do you disagree with him?
To some extent, yeah, I do disagree with him. But I also think it's very important to think about the reasons why I can't agree with him there, and see if my arguments hold any water. Science can't take this status for granted.
jupiterone
something else you guys might like (too big to post in the window), great print out for your office or room:
this sums up my beliefs about people who believe in science, but aren't scientists.. :p
Nrg2Nfinit
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
this sums up my beliefs about people who believe in science, but aren't scientists.. :p
you're a moron
i suggest you pray to jesus the next time you see a abnormal lump appear on your leg instead of visiting a doctor.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
you're a moron
i suggest you pray to jesus the next time you see a abnormal lump appear on your leg instead of visiting a doctor.
Watch it again, Karim, that's not the point.
Nrg2Nfinit
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Watch it again, Karim, that's not the point.
I'm pretty sure that was the point referring to his comment.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
I'm pretty sure that was the point referring to his comment.
Read his post before MrJiveBoJingles said Feyerabend was retarded, I think that may give you a better picture of what Egos (and, for that matter, John Safran) is talking about.
astroboy
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
this sums up my beliefs about people who believe in science, but aren't scientists.. :p
Whoever believes "in" something is not a scientist by definition. That's why science is superior at explaining the natural world... it never claims to "know" the absolute truth about anything, it only has a "best current estimation" of the processes that cause observable phenomena at any given time. These explanations evolve and become more accurate continuously.
Religion on the other hand...
Nrg2Nfinit
I understand that science should always be taken with skepticism. But shouldn't (by the same token) relgion and mythology?
Its one thing to stand by evidence based theories which have hundreds of journal articles verified by the scientific community versus evolved mythology based on simple ideas in which introcate details described are illogical.
To make the argument that simply because you do not major in science that you cannot take tested conclusions in the field as acceptable and for the most part reliable is pretty dumb isnt it?
Domesticated
Can someone answer me a question please?
I have always thought of space as being a two-dimensional plane, so if you want to travel from Earth to Mars it would be much like travelling from point to point on a completely flat plain in a desert. I’ve always heard it described and drawn this way too, such as below:
So what happens if you go ‘up’ or ‘down’? Surely these directions are as infinite as going ‘forward’ or ‘back’, as the universe extends in all directions. Or do these concepts not have any relevance to space?
If the answer is that solar systems and galaxies tend to form as flat discs like coins, then this seems strange to me. Gravity works in all directions, and shouldn’t solar systems and galaxies form as spheres instead? Why not?
