3 ms·

My working theory: the preference for believing received knowledge from the academic science community over received religious-based knowledge is (in some cases

My working theory: the preference for believing received knowledge from the academic science community over received religious-based knowledge is (in some cases) a matter of competing epistemologies. And although most people find the former epistemology more reliable, it can be difficult to make a logically unassailable case that it always is more accurate. So one angle on this topic is the question of how much the majority will tolerate a minority adhering to a different epistemology.

scarface74 7y ago
I wouldn’t want to go to a doctor who doesn’t believe in the science that viruses evolve.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  Neither would I. However, as a counterppint: I'm guessing that some people wouldn't want to see a doctor who believed that ultimately my life had no value. Both belief types can affect the outcome of patient care.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >I'm guessing that some people wouldn't want to see a doctor who believed that ultimately my life had no value. That's not a valid counterpoint. It assumes that only people of faith believe that life has value, and that medical practitioners who don't believe in an eternal soul are somehow categorically more reckless as a result. >Both belief types can affect the outcome of patient care. Not nearly as much as avoiding modern medicine and believing that prayer, homeopathy and magic crystals will heal your cancer.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    I would think just the opposite. If you believe that this life is all there is and you don’t have an afterlife to look forward to, you would value life even more. Off topic: to all of the people who are downvoting the parent post: Just because you say something in a post, doesn’t mean that you believe it. For example, I often take the devil’s advocate position. If you can’t argue both sides of an issue, you don’t truly understand it.
boomboomsubban 7y ago
>it can be difficult to make a logically unassailable case that it always is more accurate Not really. If there is some evidence that something is more accurate, than the scientific method says it is the better explanation. It can only be less accurate in matters without evidence.

scarface74 7y ago

I wouldn’t want to go to a doctor who doesn’t believe in the science that viruses evolve.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
Neither would I. However, as a counterppint: I'm guessing that some people wouldn't want to see a doctor who believed that ultimately my life had no value. Both belief types can affect the outcome of patient care.
- krapp 7y ago
  >I'm guessing that some people wouldn't want to see a doctor who believed that ultimately my life had no value. That's not a valid counterpoint. It assumes that only people of faith believe that life has value, and that medical practitioners who don't believe in an eternal soul are somehow categorically more reckless as a result. >Both belief types can affect the outcome of patient care. Not nearly as much as avoiding modern medicine and believing that prayer, homeopathy and magic crystals will heal your cancer.
- scarface74 7y ago
  I would think just the opposite. If you believe that this life is all there is and you don’t have an afterlife to look forward to, you would value life even more. Off topic: to all of the people who are downvoting the parent post: Just because you say something in a post, doesn’t mean that you believe it. For example, I often take the devil’s advocate position. If you can’t argue both sides of an issue, you don’t truly understand it.

boomboomsubban 7y ago

>it can be difficult to make a logically unassailable case that it always is more accurate Not really. If there is some evidence that something is more accurate, than the scientific method says it is the better explanation. It can only be less accurate in matters without evidence.