Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Okay, well, e=mc^2 is just an example. It is an interesting one in this context, do you know how it's derived off the top of your head? Do you agree with the logic behind it? I have no idea about any of it, but i don't doubt that the people who do know these things have given it their approval. Whether it will stand the test of time is another thing altogether.
|
I don't want to get too off topic, but the reason I'm familiar with the works of Einstein goes back to curiosity in school. I loved how his playful nature gave birth to revolutionary ideas, and the scope of those ideas. As far as standing the test of time, it's all relative.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Science is complicated stuff. I'm sure you know this. It takes several years of mathematics(at least in the u.s. public school system) to get to the point where you can derive the quadratic formula, and that's just algebra. Apparently, the amount of math you have to learn from elementary arithmetic to get through 2 years of calculus is the same amount of math you have to learn to get from the end of your calculus sequence to the kind of math needed when working with string theory. That's several years of math beyond multivariable calculus and differential equations to understand something that in popular science literature is portrayed as a simple matter of rubber bands and exotic dimensions.
Based on really simple models i've worked with, i imagine that climate models are also incredibly complicated.
The point is that the scientific knowledge we take for granted today is actually incredibly nuanced and rich, so much so that it seems to me like it's practically impossible for many people to have a comprehensive and/or meaningful understanding of any large portion of it. This isn't to say that general knowledge doesn't often suffice, but sometimes the nuance is the most important part.
You might have a general knowledge of many different subjects, but having a general knowledge doesn't mean you understand something in any kind of useful way. I have a general knowledge of fracture mechanics, but you wouldn't want to trust my opinion on the likelihood a given real beam will fail. Not to flatter you, but i imagine you have a better knowledge than most people on things scientific, since you're going to school for sciencey stuff.
|
Yes, most of the delicious stuff in science requires years of study. That doesn't make it unattainable to the masses, though. Yes, a lot of people are more knowledgeable on subjects like Clay Ainkin's sexual orientation, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not knowledgeable on how a skin cell works. The Discovery type channels have good viewership and cover a vast range of subjects. Even non-sciency shows like Good Eats feature lessons in organic and inorganic chemistry that are applied in front of your eyes to cooking a delicious meal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Why is it dangerous? If you're talking about people in general, the noble sheep is a great approximation. You might be surprised about how simple assumptions about the nature of human interaction can be used to create complex computer models that accurately predict observed human behavior in groups. I think sociology as a discipline is held together by the idea that people are essentially sheep of one color or another.
|
Some people are sheep, of course, but many have shepherd skills that are applied with reason and scientific or social knowledge every day. I think that type of stereotype is disingenuous. I'd go as far as to say that for every 25 sheep there is a shepherd, which would translate to 280 million shepherds in the world. That's nearly the population of the US.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Do you think acceptance of atheism will coincide with some sort of golden age of rationality? I don't. I think that of all the different appealing aspects of atheism, the commitment to rationality is the most hollow and the least sexy.
|
I think the only time we'll see a golden age in rationality will be when we're extinct and replaced by something that evolved a more rational nature.