4 ms·

I'm not sure how that would translate into the real world. For example, climate scientists are mostly united about anthropogenic climate change. But there is a

I'm not sure how that would translate into the real world. For example, climate scientists are mostly united about anthropogenic climate change. But there is a huge dissenting crowd of pseudo-scientists - "noise". They sound convincing because they use big words and fancy graphs, and people believe them. And they're very good at arguing, because they're driven by religious levels of irrationality and fear. Somehow, it's become much easier to sound like a scientist. There are pseudo-universities, and pseudo-qualifications. A doctorate doesn't seem to carry much weight any more. These people weave politics into the scientific numbers, and twist issues away from the hard-core science. And let's not even mention the conspiracy theorists... How does one deal with that kind of insanity?

082349872349872 3y ago
If you go far enough back on https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu you'll start to find people who were writing theses on religious topics (what would now be doctors of divinity?). Our universities actually developed from what we would now consider pseudo-universities, so the mechanism for getting science (from what we would now consider pseudo-science) has worked in the past. Eg: https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=143082 https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=143082 "Illustre Axioma, Ivstvs Avtem Fide Sva Vivet"
- polotics 3y ago
  For an example of one very interesting and relevant recent work in the field of religious topics that you decry, may I recommend Jason Josephson-Storm's excellent "the myth of disenchantment"? It starts with Marie Currie's frequent visit to Medium Séances, continues onto the amazing statistics about belief in the American public, and gets better from there.
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    On those topics I prefer Barber & Barber, "When They Severed Earth from Sky". If Josephson-Storm's thesis be true, at least given the existence proof that humanity has at least once decided that (a) the problem with studying inconsistent things is that it is too easy to make contradictory claims*, and therefore (b) we would be better off to study consistent things, allowing claims to be built upon claims, and hence at least ephemeral progress, we should expect the same process to remain possible after any future dark ages, whether it were to be carried out once more by humans, or —given our current level of destructive technology— perhaps even by remote descendants of the cockroaches. * were I to write a DD, my topic would be: "The Rapture occurred on schedule, in 1000 AD", and so few (they who would have been There to witness the 2nd coming in 1007) were taken and so many were Left Behind, that we the remanent have no historical record.

082349872349872 3y ago

If you go far enough back on https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu you'll start to find people who were writing theses on religious topics (what would now be doctors of divinity?). Our universities actually developed from what we would now consider pseudo-universities, so the mechanism for getting science (from what we would now consider pseudo-science) has worked in the past. Eg: https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=143082 https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=143082 "Illustre Axioma, Ivstvs Avtem Fide Sva Vivet"

polotics 3y ago
For an example of one very interesting and relevant recent work in the field of religious topics that you decry, may I recommend Jason Josephson-Storm's excellent "the myth of disenchantment"? It starts with Marie Currie's frequent visit to Medium Séances, continues onto the amazing statistics about belief in the American public, and gets better from there.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  On those topics I prefer Barber & Barber, "When They Severed Earth from Sky". If Josephson-Storm's thesis be true, at least given the existence proof that humanity has at least once decided that (a) the problem with studying inconsistent things is that it is too easy to make contradictory claims*, and therefore (b) we would be better off to study consistent things, allowing claims to be built upon claims, and hence at least ephemeral progress, we should expect the same process to remain possible after any future dark ages, whether it were to be carried out once more by humans, or —given our current level of destructive technology— perhaps even by remote descendants of the cockroaches. * were I to write a DD, my topic would be: "The Rapture occurred on schedule, in 1000 AD", and so few (they who would have been There to witness the 2nd coming in 1007) were taken and so many were Left Behind, that we the remanent have no historical record.