3 ms·

True, but all other things being equal (in particular, controlling for people's innate level of dogmatism), a world where more people accept the best available

by hcta 5y ago

True, but all other things being equal (in particular, controlling for people's innate level of dogmatism), a world where more people accept the best available theory represents progress over one where they espouse an outdated/discredited one. edit: Or maybe not? I guess my concrete question to you would be what balance of E/C believers do you think would be ideal?

_benj 5y ago
I completely agree with you. Honestly I don’t about an E/C ideal ratio. My only fear is an ideology becoming so popular to the detriment/exclusion of anything else. One slightly distressing example is our belief of the inherent value of all humans while our naturalist view points towards natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Say, in a plane accident giving preference to the weakest, i.e. disable, goes against the natural selection scenario that would benefit the species, given that those that are being giving preference are the ones with the least probability of survival, and from a purely naturalistic point of view, it should be the strong and healthy that should exit the plane and survive since that would equate to the greatest net benefit to the survival of the human species. This is, for example, one of the things that bothers me.
- mcphage 5y ago
  > My only fear is an ideology becoming so popular to the detriment/exclusion of anything else. Is this concern attributable to any particular real event?
  - erik_seaberg 5y ago
    I keep thinking back to the theories before relativity and quantum mechanics. Practitioners had to grudgingly accept they were fundamentally wrong after decades of useful results. Even Einstein was troubled by QM after proving relativity.
- hcta 5y ago
  Agreed that it's bad for science and for society when we start ascribing moral orientation to the two sides of a question of scientific truth. These days people seem to do it often on the question of efficacy of preventive measures against COVID, also climate change, and biological correlates of intelligence.

by hcta 5y ago

_benj 5y ago

I completely agree with you. Honestly I don’t about an E/C ideal ratio. My only fear is an ideology becoming so popular to the detriment/exclusion of anything else. One slightly distressing example is our belief of the inherent value of all humans while our naturalist view points towards natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Say, in a plane accident giving preference to the weakest, i.e. disable, goes against the natural selection scenario that would benefit the species, given that those that are being giving preference are the ones with the least probability of survival, and from a purely naturalistic point of view, it should be the strong and healthy that should exit the plane and survive since that would equate to the greatest net benefit to the survival of the human species. This is, for example, one of the things that bothers me.

mcphage 5y ago
> My only fear is an ideology becoming so popular to the detriment/exclusion of anything else. Is this concern attributable to any particular real event?
- erik_seaberg 5y ago
  I keep thinking back to the theories before relativity and quantum mechanics. Practitioners had to grudgingly accept they were fundamentally wrong after decades of useful results. Even Einstein was troubled by QM after proving relativity.
hcta 5y ago
Agreed that it's bad for science and for society when we start ascribing moral orientation to the two sides of a question of scientific truth. These days people seem to do it often on the question of efficacy of preventive measures against COVID, also climate change, and biological correlates of intelligence.