1. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180634 by RationalSheep on May 15, 2008 at 12:28 pm

All knowledge is contingent in science, and prone to falsifiability. Henri's statement is logically correct, and scientifically safe, and as Janus points out, the rest is not altered by this semantic quibble. He's on target. Dacey's problem is the problem of all ethical inquiry by philosophers, as the logical positivists pointed out, it amounts to pure poetry.

2. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180489 by RationalSheep on May 15, 2008 at 5:18 am

I'm really quite sick of the "ad-men" Nisbet, Mooney, Dacey, et al., and their deconstruction of science. Good ideas and facts should prevail on their own, unframed, without rhetoric or prettying-up for the general public. The public needs to catch up to the 21st century, we need not slow down on their account. If the U.S. falls behind because most of our citizens want to believe in fairies, then so be it. I think that framing is pandering, and soon we'll end up like that movie "Idiocracy" where all is superficiality, and ideologies and facts are both reduced to mere catch-phrases.