4 ms·

> Could have been written “the rise of heresy and the glorification of idolatry”. "Heresy" and "pseudo-science" are not synonyms. "Ignorance" and "idolatry" de

> Could have been written “the rise of heresy and the glorification of idolatry”. "Heresy" and "pseudo-science" are not synonyms. "Ignorance" and "idolatry" definitely aren't even similar. This point is poorly argued > There’s no rise of pseudo-science; that’s been with us all along, and generally far more prevalent than it is today. Certainly there's always been pseudo-science. Far more prevalent, perhaps. But never has it been more harmful. > The science continues to win regardless, because it can be proven without appeal to emotion or authority. This I disagree with. Any time politics enters into the equation, an appeal to emotion or an appeal to authority become benefits. For example, Nuclear power is statistically safer than any other form of electricity generation, yet politicians worldwide can win on anti-nuclear platforms. Choose any intersection of science and politics, and there is no obvious pattern of science winning.

teakettle42 4y ago
> "Heresy" and "pseudo-science" are not synonyms. They are when your definition of “science” is an argument from authority. > "Ignorance" and "idolatry" definitely aren't even similar. This point is poorly argued Idolatry is the worship of false idols — worshipping something other than the one true god. The parallel with “glorification of ignorance” should be obvious enough. > Certainly there's always been pseudo-science. Far more prevalent, perhaps. But never has it been more harmful. Pseudo-science has never been more harmful? Really? How about the use of pseudo-scientific eugenics to label and justify sterilization — and often, murder - of undesirables? That’s just recent history. We’ve done worse in a myriad of small ways, for longer, from positions of much greater ignorance. > Choose any intersection of science and politics, and there is no obvious pattern of science winning. You don’t believe there’s a clear pattern of science winning over the course of recent human history?

teakettle42 4y ago

> "Heresy" and "pseudo-science" are not synonyms. They are when your definition of “science” is an argument from authority. > "Ignorance" and "idolatry" definitely aren't even similar. This point is poorly argued Idolatry is the worship of false idols — worshipping something other than the one true god. The parallel with “glorification of ignorance” should be obvious enough. > Certainly there's always been pseudo-science. Far more prevalent, perhaps. But never has it been more harmful. Pseudo-science has never been more harmful? Really? How about the use of pseudo-scientific eugenics to label and justify sterilization — and often, murder - of undesirables? That’s just recent history. We’ve done worse in a myriad of small ways, for longer, from positions of much greater ignorance. > Choose any intersection of science and politics, and there is no obvious pattern of science winning. You don’t believe there’s a clear pattern of science winning over the course of recent human history?