3 ms·
Saying that we are unwiser post-enlightenment than in the dark ages is pure charlatanism in my opinion, however vague than statement is. The arrogance argument
by lz400 9y ago
Saying that we are unwiser post-enlightenment than in the dark ages is pure charlatanism in my opinion, however vague than statement is. The arrogance argument is more arguable but in the context it makes it look like the only thing we got out of the scientific revolution is arrogance, which is like saying that the only thing we got from discovering penicilin is antibiotic overuse.
- petermcneeley 9y agoThis might be enough for you but im looking for much clearer statements that can be demonstrated to be false. As an example of this I would point to my article on steven pinker. http://darkcephas.blogspot.ca/2018/01/on-group-selection.html http://darkcephas.blogspot.ca/2018/01/on-group-selection.htm...
- lz400 9y agoCharlatans don’t really do clear. Look at Deepak Chopra, it’s also going to be difficult to do demonstrably false stuff. It’s mostly vague mumbo jumbo that’s intuitively nonsense. Still, saying that we are unwiser now than before the enlightenment is demonstrably false by a number of metrics, from medical results to number of books published, literacy and many more.