But didn't Galileo get an apology???
===
It worries me deeply that I felt HB's post was easily understandable;
you just have to read it fast.
The key point is hinted at:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HB
...due to the uncertainty, creates an emotional reaction that overlays the objectivity....
If science allows itself to have a fuzzy area, then why can't someone else?
The average person, who is not an expert, will sense this fuzzy area. If you don't fully understand how statistics deals with this, there is a gap in your ability to reason.
It almost looks like it is half made up.
Science is right worrying about the layman being influenced by emotion....
|
"...there is a gap in your ability to reason."
This is not actually true, but people often assume it is; that they can't follow an argument through, if certain flags are raised--such as charts, graphs, equations, or often even just numbers (or stats), or maybe even just certain "fancy" or otherwise unfamiliar words.
Well, I'm getting a bit condescending here, but many folks just assume they can't do something, and "glaze over."
Some of those people, I suspect, also assume that nobody else could really understand things much more than do they themselves.
Some percentage of folks who live their entire lives within a familiar horizon, don't realize that there are others on the other side of the globe--measuring the sun at "nighttime," confirming the fuzzy part.
"Once we know the night sun, we may need to change things somewhat." -HB
The problem is that people rely on "sensing," but not tryng their "ability to reason," because "it almost looks like it is ...made up," and then they are "influenced by emotion."
...hey, I think we do "know the night sun" better and better these days...
...and so we do "change things somewhat."
===
C'mon, whip that brain into shape!
Just because it's hard, doesn't mean it's inscrutable.
Just because it is inscrutable, or "it
almost looks like it is half made up," doesn't mean that it
is half made up.
Rather than giving up, or digging in your heels at every turn....
Learning goes a lot easier if you assume the hard stuff is right, and then later at the end when you want to evaluate the conclusion, go back and question the links in the chain of logic.
Don't dismiss something just because it may not be true; first check to see if it is valid.
....Big difference between validity and truth. (as you mentioned)
Maybe God created things 6000 years ago and just made things look so much older, and made things work as if they evolve; ...or maybe not.
But either way, the sciences based on evolutionary theories work; they are practical, useful, and hence valid...
...even if they are a complete illusion, even if they are not "true."
....Like Newton was wrong, and Einstein was right; or Einstein was wrong, and Ed Witten was right; or Witten was wrong and...
...but still valid within their respective realms.===
But before I go on preaching....
What is your point HB; that evolution theory shouldn't be taught in schools, because of fuzzy dice?
...or that it should be taught as an example of a theory, which isn't necessarily the truth, but has a high validity?
...and remember, it is "The Origin of Species,"
not "The Origin of Life" that we're talking about here.
I think it's folks confusing the two that leads to a lot of misunderstanding.
But, HB, you are right:
"Science is right worrying about the layman being influenced by emotion...."
And I feel some accomodation should be made. The demand for total reason ...is unreasonable.
Scientist run the risk of sounding self-righteous.
...maybe that's too strong, but reason has it's limits....
...as Stuart Kauffmann suggests in
Beyond Reductionism:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kauffman
|
~
...other Favorite Quote of the Day, now running thru my head:
Fuzzy dice,
...and bongos in the back.
My ship of love,
...is ready to attack.
Good catch CraigD! My mistake.
Re: Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools
Until the Wright brothers flew, 'everyone' knew that if God meant people to fly they would have wings. Think about that. 
semantics is not always just pedantic quibbling. ~ douglas r. hofstadter
