1. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46491 by flankspeed on May 31, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Scottishgeologist: "Say the word "scientist" and people will think of some mad, eccentric egghead character surrounded by bubbling retorts, cackling remarks like "Ahahhh!!! Eureka!!!!"

Nice to see a fellow Scot on board. Apropos of that remark, I once heard a nice statement - alas can't remember from who - that said that the most exciting scientific discoveries don't start with someone saying "Eureka! I have it!", but rather:
"Hey, that's funny..."

Mr Dawkins won me over in TGD when he said that we should be encouraging people (especially kids) to be curious about how the world works. Thing is, when that's done right, kids LOVE IT! I've yet to see a kid who hasn't, at some point or another, been really happy about finally figuring something out. There's a real sense of achievement that comes with learning (scientific or otherwise).

Sure, the image thing might currently be a problem, but for how long?

After all, most scientists aren't wearing cassocks nowadays, so let's be thankful for that, for a start. Plus, like ROKORT says, "it's a profession of fun and adventure". Damn straight. Who doesn't like a Vandergraff (spelling?) Generator?

2. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46479 by flankspeed on May 31, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Kaiserkriss:

"Professor Hawking for example has hardly any of the "qualities" you describe"

What, you don't like his accent? Sounds cool to me. Husky too. He's a hit with the laydeez, that man. So I hear, anyway...

3. Sam's Flea!

Comment #46478 by flankspeed on May 31, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Mr. Slane refers to the concept of 'original sin': that of the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

He believes, presumably, that everything in the bible is true. Adam existed, was thrown out of the Garden of Eden, etc.

Okay, then. Where is the Garden of Eden? Should be pretty easy to find, when you consider how distinctive it's going to be. Sheer paradise, big park full of trees, tons of animals, fenced off and guarded by angels wielding flaming swords.

If anyone really believes that the bible is real, then there's a way they can prove it to me, right there. Find me the Garden of Eden. Let me have a conversation with the angel that's guarding it. Then I'll believe that the whole original sin thing is real too.

We've got satellites that can see the whole world. Why can't they pick out the Garden of Eden? Is it a 'stealth garden' or what?

See also: (evidence for) dinosaurs, (lack of evidence for) Tower of Babel, Noah's Ark etc.

4. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

Comment #46448 by flankspeed on May 31, 2007 at 9:14 am

Best analogy I've heard recently is that God is just Santa Claus for adults.

Pithy, eh?

5. The Courtier's Reply

Comment #46447 by flankspeed on May 31, 2007 at 9:11 am

As someone who works for Waterstones, I do weep at the huge range of books we seem to stock that involve the consultation of fairies / goblins/ angels/ unicorns/ dolphins/ whatever.

And one title in particular which I just have to share:

"Who Built The Moon?"

Fer Chrissakes...

6. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #46446 by flankspeed on May 31, 2007 at 8:57 am

I should point out to XANETH that the Derren Brown book is not ALL about post-cultural studies. But he devotes a very interesting section of his book "Tricks of the Mind" to 'Pseudo-science', psychology, logic, and different ways of thinking.

And there's magic tricks too. Which is cool.

7. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #41997 by flankspeed on May 17, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Funnily enough, the most concise, yet balanced critique of postmodernism / relativism I have come across was in a book written by that premiere exponent of mind-messery, Derren Brown.

The main thrust of it is that the humanities are basically dealing with post-colonialism. Cultural relativism is basically a big anthropological guilt-trip, but only if taken too far.

The thing is, understanding another culture is made easier if you approach it on it's own terms, and within it's own context. Where 'postmodernism' does score some points (and I agree that it's an awful term - 'relativism' describes the procedure much more accurately) is where is tells us we should try and understand a culture by walking a mile in its shoes, so to speak.

The problem arises when we throw the baby out with the bathwater, and neglect to remember that we all rely on objective evidence at the end of the day. Or, if you want to continue with the analogy, forget which shoes we are wearing, or even forget the reasons that we wear any shoes in the first place.

So, it might be all very clever to, for example, say that when I point out the colour 'red', 'my' appreciation of 'red' might be different to 'your' appreciation of 'red'. But in the end, we both agree that what we are pointing at is, in fact, 'red'. We can communicate that fact to each other.

Evidence for things that are objectively true presents itself to our senses. It's only the ways we interpret them that can differ, whether linguistically or causally. I'm a historian and an english teacher, rather than a scientist, but no matter my field, I shouldn't be so overblown that I dismiss evidence - which is in front of my nose - about the way the world works, for the sake of some tomfoolery about linguistic construction.

Or to put it another way, 'postmodernists' who doubt the veracity of scientific models, and who travel to conferences on aeroplanes, should be thankful that the people who made the aeroplanes were on much surer ground (if you'll forgive the expression).