On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:15:08 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> "Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Public and media reactions strike me as being reminiscent of the days
>> when so-called “conflicts” between Newtonian and Planck time 
were all
>> the rage.  Why is it such a shock when we are reminded for the
>> umpteenth time that the MODELS that we build in accordance with our
>> various theories apply to a specific range of observed phenomena and
>> that the greater universe as a whole is under no obligation to
>> constrain its existence within those parameters?
> 
> Probably because most people don't understand what science is all about.
> 
> No small part of that may be that people who come from religious
> backgrounds and are used to having The Truth handed to them don't
> realize that science doesn't operate that way.  There is also the human
> craving for answers (which is a major impetus for both religion and
> science), which leads to the media giving their customers what they want
> (i.e., answers), even when the scientists haven't published an answer. 
> This confirms people's mistaken impression that science dispenses
> answers the way religious leaders do.
> 
> So when science learns something radical, it shakes up people's worlds. 
> For people who never knowingly trusted science in the first place, it
> "confirms" their belief that scientists are bumbling idiots.  (I say
> "knowingly" because they certainly do trust their planes, trains,
> automobiles, bridges, computers, electricity, inclined planes, GPS
> systems, modern medicine, radios, skyscrapers, telephones, television
> sets, and smoke detectors--that last of which would not work if
> radioactive decay rates were not constant.)

I've been reading Michael Schumer's _The Believing Brain_, and one point 
that he makes is that conscious beings (be they human or not) are hard-
wired by evolution to believe stuff.

Another point he makes is that an individual's scientific knowledge in 
and of itself is not a predictor of whether or not they believe in a 
deity or some other supernatural force.

What's missing from most education these days is teaching of the 
scientific method.  Teaching students scientific facts just gives 
students something else to believe in.  Teaching how those facts were 
determined to be most likely true (and what process exists to allow that 
to change to "you know what, we were wrong about that") is more important 
than the facts themselves.

In short, a skill that isn't taught often enough is that of critical 
thinking.

Jim

Post a reply to this message