2 ms·

"in terms of maximum effect on the human race, the "greatest" science is the man of the street who can't be bamboozled by an idea that has no supporting evidenc

by wissler 14y ago

"in terms of maximum effect on the human race, the "greatest" science is the man of the street who can't be bamboozled by an idea that has no supporting evidence." That's a rather grandiose claim. Where's your supporting evidence?

lutusp 14y ago
> Where's your supporting evidence? Modern times is my evidence. The reason the Church didn't burn Galileo at the stake in 1633, as they did Bruno in 1600, is, not because they didn't want to, but because public awareness of science, of the value of comparing ideas to reality, had changed enough in that interval to make it a practical impossibility. And that was just 33 years. The single most important manifestation of science is the general increase in everyday scientific reasoning, not the specialized form of science practiced by professionals, as important as the latter surely is. Professional, high-level science gives us vaccines and modern medicine, certainly very valuable. Everyday science gives us the notion that an unfamiliar idea or claim must be accompanied by evidence. The second trumps the first.
- wissler 14y ago
  Sure, the mob refraining from killing and attacking scientists is good. But the credit still goes to Galileo for his insight, not the common man for refraining from abusing Galileo. IOW, who you have decided to credit is morally perverse.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Sure, the mob refraining from killing and attacking scientists is good. What? Are your reading what I'm posting? There was no mob, there was an all-powerful Church. It was the Church, not the public, who objected to what Galileo had to say and who put him on trial. > But the credit still goes to Galileo for his insight, not the common man ... You completely missed the point of this history lesson. The reason Galileo didn't share Bruno's fate wasn't Galileo, it was the common man. Times and perceptions had changed. Galileo and the common man both benefited. Everyone moved ahead except the Church. The Church wasn't reluctant to burn Galileo at the stake because of his discoveries. Quite the contrary -- he was prosecuted for precisely those insights and the degree to which they contradicted Church dogma. But they could only go so far, because of public relations and changing times. > IOW, who you have decided to credit is morally perverse. Since I did no such thing, I don't have to defend it. It's clear from what you're posting that you have no clue about this historical period, so ... http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galile...
    - wissler 14y ago
      You were the one who made a wildly unsubstantiated claim that the common man's attitude about science has more effect on the human race than the insights of actual scientists. None of what you've said since then has justified this wild claim of yours and you can't because it's just patently absurd. What's clear is that you haven't actually provided enough evidence to support your claim, that your original attack on me is pure hypocrisy, and that you now wish to cover your tracks by pretending that I just don't understand you.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > You were the one who made a wildly unsubstantiated claim that the common man's attitude about science has more effect on the human race than the insights of actual scientists. "Wildly unsubstantiated"? Do you go outdoors much? It is a fact on the ground -- a dramatic reduction in religious persecution, indeed of religion altogether, a decline in the acceptance of superstitious beliefs, an increase in intellectual freedom demanded by the common man, and a thousand other examples. And the assumption that an idea with no supporting evidence is assumed to be false, by itself the most important evidence for public acceptance of the scientific outlook. The true revolution in science is not the existence of scientific specialists (as important as that is), it is the fact that the public is willing to pay for the science, because they know it works, both as public policy and as an intellectual model for everyman. Science is not about "actual scientists" as you put it. Science is about reality testing instead of blind belief. That's what distinguishes modern times from 500 years ago, a time when superstition ruled. Science cannot survive without public support, and public support requires public comprehension. The existence of working scientists is an effect, not a cause. Look, I'm not going to bring you up to date on the last 500 years of human history, you're responsible for your own ignorance. Solve the problem st its source -- start now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science > What's clear is that you haven't actually provided enough evidence to support your claim It's not my claim, as you would know if you knew anything at all.
        wissler 14y ago

by wissler 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

> Where's your supporting evidence? Modern times is my evidence. The reason the Church didn't burn Galileo at the stake in 1633, as they did Bruno in 1600, is, not because they didn't want to, but because public awareness of science, of the value of comparing ideas to reality, had changed enough in that interval to make it a practical impossibility. And that was just 33 years. The single most important manifestation of science is the general increase in everyday scientific reasoning, not the specialized form of science practiced by professionals, as important as the latter surely is. Professional, high-level science gives us vaccines and modern medicine, certainly very valuable. Everyday science gives us the notion that an unfamiliar idea or claim must be accompanied by evidence. The second trumps the first.

wissler 14y ago
Sure, the mob refraining from killing and attacking scientists is good. But the credit still goes to Galileo for his insight, not the common man for refraining from abusing Galileo. IOW, who you have decided to credit is morally perverse.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Sure, the mob refraining from killing and attacking scientists is good. What? Are your reading what I'm posting? There was no mob, there was an all-powerful Church. It was the Church, not the public, who objected to what Galileo had to say and who put him on trial. > But the credit still goes to Galileo for his insight, not the common man ... You completely missed the point of this history lesson. The reason Galileo didn't share Bruno's fate wasn't Galileo, it was the common man. Times and perceptions had changed. Galileo and the common man both benefited. Everyone moved ahead except the Church. The Church wasn't reluctant to burn Galileo at the stake because of his discoveries. Quite the contrary -- he was prosecuted for precisely those insights and the degree to which they contradicted Church dogma. But they could only go so far, because of public relations and changing times. > IOW, who you have decided to credit is morally perverse. Since I did no such thing, I don't have to defend it. It's clear from what you're posting that you have no clue about this historical period, so ... http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galile...
  - wissler 14y ago
    You were the one who made a wildly unsubstantiated claim that the common man's attitude about science has more effect on the human race than the insights of actual scientists. None of what you've said since then has justified this wild claim of yours and you can't because it's just patently absurd. What's clear is that you haven't actually provided enough evidence to support your claim, that your original attack on me is pure hypocrisy, and that you now wish to cover your tracks by pretending that I just don't understand you.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > You were the one who made a wildly unsubstantiated claim that the common man's attitude about science has more effect on the human race than the insights of actual scientists. "Wildly unsubstantiated"? Do you go outdoors much? It is a fact on the ground -- a dramatic reduction in religious persecution, indeed of religion altogether, a decline in the acceptance of superstitious beliefs, an increase in intellectual freedom demanded by the common man, and a thousand other examples. And the assumption that an idea with no supporting evidence is assumed to be false, by itself the most important evidence for public acceptance of the scientific outlook. The true revolution in science is not the existence of scientific specialists (as important as that is), it is the fact that the public is willing to pay for the science, because they know it works, both as public policy and as an intellectual model for everyman. Science is not about "actual scientists" as you put it. Science is about reality testing instead of blind belief. That's what distinguishes modern times from 500 years ago, a time when superstition ruled. Science cannot survive without public support, and public support requires public comprehension. The existence of working scientists is an effect, not a cause. Look, I'm not going to bring you up to date on the last 500 years of human history, you're responsible for your own ignorance. Solve the problem st its source -- start now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science > What's clear is that you haven't actually provided enough evidence to support your claim It's not my claim, as you would know if you knew anything at all.
      - wissler 14y ago