A friend pointed me at an interesting article on why people seem so resistant to science, especially recently. From the article:
In sum, the developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy. This is the current situation in the United States with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and of evolutionary biology. These clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities. Hence these are among the domains where Americans' resistance to science is the strongest.
Spot on.
What's sad is that the science is almost always right. Why? Because it's tested. You can't test faith.
Posted by jherr at June 6, 2007 01:07 PMActually, What is best about science is its ability to say, "... I was wrong ..." and less so about something being \right/. "... I was wrong ...." allows for further testing of what at some previous point in time seemingly proved to be right. Science though says nothing about what is hasn't proven, either positively or negatively. We must also give credence to the notion that mathematics, that which helps us model the science, is just that - a model - and not actual reality. Example: the way in which the universe works according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity worked that way before Einstein or his theory came along. We now know that one would be foolish to claim that the universe didn't work that way until science [meaning the scientific method], Einstein or his theory came along. But we only \now/ know it.
Faith by its own definition requires the acceptance of some notion without proof. One might want to argue that one does not need faith once science has proven or dis-proven something. Given the previous paragraph I leave you with this challenge:
Left to is own devises not corrupted by outside forces I have faith that science will continue to improve on what it thought it had previously and solidly proven. Want to challenge that faith? Go ahead, I dare ya ....
Posted by: mjpjr227 at June 6, 2007 05:17 PMCertainly the forces of commerce and the global economy are in science's favor.
But then I look at the Roberts nomination and wonder if the religious right hasn't gone completely out of control. In Reagan's day the zealots could be controlled. But not today. Now the zealots seem to outweigh the traditionally commercial wing of the party.
What's clear to me is that while we may fall behind for a while because of this zaniness, that Europe and Asia will press ahead boldly. So this temporary power that the right gain from going against science, will have a long term impact on the strength of the country.
The hypocrites that support creationism also drive cars and ride in airplanes. All of which are created by the same science they reject. At least the Amish are consistent. They won't use the advancements of science that they don't support.
Posted by: jherr at June 7, 2007 07:21 AMThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)