3 ms·

That might be true - but it doesn't have to necessarily relevant on the topic of evolution. If you want to convince people, it's best to find common ground rat

That might be true - but it doesn't have to necessarily relevant on the topic of evolution. If you want to convince people, it's best to find common ground rather than running to points where you'll know you find contention. Baby steps.

lutusp 13y ago
> If you want to convince people, it's best to find common ground rather than running to points where you'll know you find contention. Some contention is unavoidable. Consider the chasm that separates science and religion -- the scientist's default outlook is that ideas are assumed to be false until there's supporting evidence. The religious believer's default outlook is that ideas are assumed to be true until evidence proves them false (and some believers refuse to examine any evidence) -- exactly the opposite outlook. This can't be waved away, and no meaningful discussion can begin until the chasm is bridged. Until 1600, religion solved the science problem by killing all the scientists. Since then, it has solved the problem by ignoring science, even while living in a world increasingly defined by science and scientific thinking. That's not a trivial problem, and it's not a question of common ground -- there isn't one. > Baby steps. Let the religious make the journey to science, with steps of any size they choose.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  > Let the religious make the journey to science, with steps of any size they choose. I wrote a comment earlier where this attitude is commonplace. that seems to take an approach of "let them figure it out" - while abdicating any responsibility for helping them do so. That approach exemplifies the attitude of "amateurs get angry, professional educate"[1]. I think you can argue that Nye was the consummate professional in that regard in that he's willing to engage a discussion in order to educate people & explain the importance of science & the need for proper education. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200474
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > I wrote a comment earlier where this attitude is commonplace. that seems to take an approach of "let them figure it out" - while abdicating any responsibility for helping them do so. You're obviously a thoughtful person, but this business of "helping them do so" is in my view rather paternalistic. I think the right moment for a religious person to engage with science is when he feels he must, to make sense of his life, not when a scientifically literate acquaintance independently decides it's time. This serves to break the pattern of bogus authority and a lifelong dependence on others for intellectual guidance. Just my two cents' worth.

lutusp 13y ago

> If you want to convince people, it's best to find common ground rather than running to points where you'll know you find contention. Some contention is unavoidable. Consider the chasm that separates science and religion -- the scientist's default outlook is that ideas are assumed to be false until there's supporting evidence. The religious believer's default outlook is that ideas are assumed to be true until evidence proves them false (and some believers refuse to examine any evidence) -- exactly the opposite outlook. This can't be waved away, and no meaningful discussion can begin until the chasm is bridged. Until 1600, religion solved the science problem by killing all the scientists. Since then, it has solved the problem by ignoring science, even while living in a world increasingly defined by science and scientific thinking. That's not a trivial problem, and it's not a question of common ground -- there isn't one. > Baby steps. Let the religious make the journey to science, with steps of any size they choose.

joelrunyon 13y ago
> Let the religious make the journey to science, with steps of any size they choose. I wrote a comment earlier where this attitude is commonplace. that seems to take an approach of "let them figure it out" - while abdicating any responsibility for helping them do so. That approach exemplifies the attitude of "amateurs get angry, professional educate"[1]. I think you can argue that Nye was the consummate professional in that regard in that he's willing to engage a discussion in order to educate people & explain the importance of science & the need for proper education. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200474
- lutusp 13y ago
  > I wrote a comment earlier where this attitude is commonplace. that seems to take an approach of "let them figure it out" - while abdicating any responsibility for helping them do so. You're obviously a thoughtful person, but this business of "helping them do so" is in my view rather paternalistic. I think the right moment for a religious person to engage with science is when he feels he must, to make sense of his life, not when a scientifically literate acquaintance independently decides it's time. This serves to break the pattern of bogus authority and a lifelong dependence on others for intellectual guidance. Just my two cents' worth.