Talk:Anti-science

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(What I've learned so far.)
(What I've learned so far.)
Line 121: Line 121:
 
::Actually, I don't think point two is really true.  In situations like in the US (and there are some who are trying in Canada), eroding public confidence in science is pretty important, leading to things like global warming denialism and vaccination denialism, to say nothing of distrust of medicine and other aspects of science beyond whatever the hobby horse of the anti-science group in question is resisting.  Off the top, that leads people into problematic behaviours, such as dangerous alternate medicines, not vaccinating their kids, not doing things to offset global warming, etc., but also when it gets to the point where it's affecting public policy (and it is) then yes, there is an effect on funding of scientific research.    This all undercuts science itself quite badly, both from the point of view of the ability to perform science, and the effectiveness of its findings.  Plus, of course, if indoctrination in such views is introduced in schools, that interferes with the development of critical thinking in the first place, depriving science of promising new scientists who'd otherwise be able to add to the field.  Altogether, not good.  But then, what do I know?  I'm not a scientist. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] 06:10, 3 November 2008 (EST)
 
::Actually, I don't think point two is really true.  In situations like in the US (and there are some who are trying in Canada), eroding public confidence in science is pretty important, leading to things like global warming denialism and vaccination denialism, to say nothing of distrust of medicine and other aspects of science beyond whatever the hobby horse of the anti-science group in question is resisting.  Off the top, that leads people into problematic behaviours, such as dangerous alternate medicines, not vaccinating their kids, not doing things to offset global warming, etc., but also when it gets to the point where it's affecting public policy (and it is) then yes, there is an effect on funding of scientific research.    This all undercuts science itself quite badly, both from the point of view of the ability to perform science, and the effectiveness of its findings.  Plus, of course, if indoctrination in such views is introduced in schools, that interferes with the development of critical thinking in the first place, depriving science of promising new scientists who'd otherwise be able to add to the field.  Altogether, not good.  But then, what do I know?  I'm not a scientist. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] 06:10, 3 November 2008 (EST)
 
:::Kels, you forgot to mention stem cell research, and area of endeavor where funding has clearly been denied to (US-based) scientists. '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 13:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)
 
:::Kels, you forgot to mention stem cell research, and area of endeavor where funding has clearly been denied to (US-based) scientists. '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 13:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)
 +
::::I mentioned I'm not a scientist, isn't that close?  Besides, I'm an artist (well, working on it), which makes me even ''more'' under-funded! --[[User:Kels|Kels]] 13:59, 3 November 2008 (EST)
  
 
==What I have learned from Ungtss==
 
==What I have learned from Ungtss==

Revision as of 18:59, 3 November 2008

I think the anti-science movement referred to at the end has been around a lot longer than the 60's and 70's. Think of Frankenstein, for example. And the current movement against GM crops. As the article points out, though, these are usually not movements that deny the validity of the science - they decry the way it might or is neing used.

If stretched to technology as well, the Luddites would be another old example. humanbe in 17:00, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

There's always been suspicion of science, but the group in the 60's and 70's actually called themselves anti-science. I didn't want confusion in the names, is all. --Kels 17:14, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
Ah, ok... what was the group called? humanbe in 17:24, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

I wonder about the meaning of "anti-science" here. I would prefer to say that anti-science can mean any of the following:

  1. Opposite to contemporary scientific position on a matter touching on the physical or life sciences.
    • For example, any doctor in the 18th or 19th centuries who disagreed with leeches, blood-letting, etc. and who promoted what was than a "proto-scientific" theory of disease transmission by invisible substances. This actually led in time to the germ theory of disease, which is now universally accepted by science.
  2. Ideological refusal to accept scientific findings.
    • For example, young earth creationists who dispute the authenticity of the fossil record on the grounds that the Bible indicates that human beings, animals and plants were all created by God less than 10,000 years ago.
    • The Soviet Union held ideologically to some ideas about evolution - such as acquired physical characteristics being passed on to one's descendants.

So whether opposition or support for various global warming theories is "anti-science" depends on which of the two meanings you give the term anti-science. If it's opposing the so-called mainstream view, then your usage is correct. But it's hard to say whether it is conservatives and independent scientists like Lindzen, Christy, Singer, Seitz, Baliunas, etc. - or liberals and environmentalists like Al Gore - who are the ones who ideologically reject scientific findings. --Uncle Ed bug me 09:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't call your second example "anti-science". I would be "anti-establishment". When science is used to disprove something that is scientific, it is just as valuable as when it proves something. The overall knowledge is increased. Your third and forth examples are right on the nose if you ask me. Though the Soviets held to those beliefs to further a politcal goal not for any scientific reason.--Edgerunner76 10:03, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Anti-science is an epistemology that actively advocates that the methods that sciences uses to acquire knowledge are more limited than they are or completely false. They also argue for methodologies that are contrary to reason. It is not an argument on specific theories, but rather epistemology and methodology. Concepts such as measureability, predictability, falsifiability, and observability are abandoned for subjective and epistemologically trivial and useless concepts such as personal belief, anecdotal evidence, incredulity, and arguments from authority. Then they try and legislate it and ram it down politically when they are ignored by real scientist. 130.113.218.226 11:55, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I agree. Anti-science indicates a position which does not accept the usefulness of the scientific method to obtain valid information about the world.--Bob's your uncle 12:44, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Citation requested

Someone's requested a citation on a statement that (I assume) asserts that the anti-scientists engage in outright denialism, but does not give an example. There are so many examples, can we pull one out and put it there? Researcher 21:59, 27 December 2007 (EST)

How about just a link to CP? Or maybe Huckabee's official site? --Kels 22:00, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Definition bias

I think your definition is biased. It makes it seem as if any criticism of a particular theory is an attack on all of science, or on the institution of science itself.

Possibly a critic could accept scientific principles but reject a particular theory as contradicting the evidence of observation, or just not having sufficient explanatory power.

Another criticism could be that physical science has overstepped its bounds by assuming that all phenomena are physical, including the mental state of human beings who use rational thought to question religious dogma. --Uncle Ed bug me 21:57, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't really see what you are referring to in the article... do you mean this: "Anti-science, in modern terms, refers to largely ideological attacks on the teaching of evolutionary theory and other sciences in schools, and their use in the world at large."? Or something else? By the way, all "phenomena" are physical, by definition. Perhaps you mean "noumena"? humanUser talk:Human 22:31, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Ed, Ed, Ed. Science is based on the concept that "all phenomena are physical". And that all phenomena are natural. Which rules out the supernatural as an area of scientific study. That might be why NOMA makes sense if you want to understand the difference between religion and science, faith and reason. Rational Edevidence 11:19, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Well science has attempted to study the supernatural - ghosts, ESP, clairvoyance etc. - and not found any evidence. So until someone actually comes up with evidence then there is little point in pursuing supernatural explanations. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 11:31, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
If science managed to find a way to detect and quantify ghosts or anything else classified as supernatural, it would no longer be regarded as supernatural. By definition. Science only deals with the physical and the natural. Ghosts (and god) are classified as supernatural phenomena because they cannot be scientifically studied. Rational Edevidence 12:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Info needed

I think that something should be said on whether a philosophical stance denying science in principle fits in "anti-science". From what I read, anti-science seems to apply to those who disagree with science because they actually disagree with what it concludes, but it says nothing about the denial of science for philosophical reasons regardless of what it claims.

Rework

I have expanded the definition and removed/edited the following text in italics.--Bobbing up 12:24, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Advocates of ID and global warming skeptics are often accused of being "anti-science." However, it is unclear exactly what exactly one has to do or be to be "anti-science." The phrase could mean:

* "Opposed to a particular paradigm currently dominant in the scientific community," in which case Einstein, Darwin, Pasteur, Galileo, and Copernicus would also meet the definition of having been "anti-science;" * "Expressly opposed to the scientific method itself," in which case the accusers would be hard pressed to find any examples of ID advocates who expressly oppose the scientific method; * "Wrong," in which case every scientist holding to a hypothesis that is ultimately shown to be untrue would meet the definition of being "anti-science."

None of those definitions seem to simultaneously provide a meaningful distinction and categorize advocates of ID as "anti-science." Perhaps if the "pro-science" crowd were clearer about what exactly it means to be "anti-science," the term might come to hold some meaning.

In the absence of a clear definition, the term "anti-science" appears to be simple empty rhetoric along the lines of the term "Anti-American," which raises emotional hackles among believers, but falls limp among those not already "in the camp."

I'm curious why you found it necessary to remove those portions, without addressing them on the merits. Ungtss 11:59, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Basically because I, as you requested, expanded/clarified the initial anti-science definition to explain why they were included. As I understood it your additions were motivated by your perception that the term anti-science was either insufficiently vague or did not refer to the two issues you hi-lighted. My edits were an attempt to answer that criticism. That done I moved your edit here out of fairness so that you could defend them if you wished - to have done otherwise would have left the two halves of the article arguing against each other.
I think that my edits were also in line with rationalWiki's prime mission statement of "Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement."--Bobbing up 12:24, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Definition

The definition of "anti-science" in the article is:

"Anti-science, in modern terms, refers to largely ideological attacks on the teaching of evolutionary theory and other sciences in schools, and their use in the world at large."

This fits into the box of "opposition to current paradigms." According to your definition, anti-science types do not run around burning down labs or telling their children not to be scientists -- they are not expressly opposed to science itself. They are simply opposed to particular paradigms currently prevalent in the scientific community (e.g. common descent and the belief that global warming is primarily human-caused. Seems to me that calling them "anti-science" for that is equivalent to calling someone "Anti-American" for wanting to nationalize healthcare -- basically defining private health care as "American" and inferring that anyone opposed to it must be opposed to America itself. It's just rhetoric. Ungtss 15:01, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, opposition to evolutionary theory is not based on science - but on ideological reasons. The same goes for opponents of global warming - though they probably have more economic reasons for trying to dismiss the science.
Yes, that means that opponents of evolution, anthropogenic global warming deniers and those who object to common descent are arguing against the current paradigm - but they are not doing so from a scientific basis. Consequently it is legitimate to refer to them as anti-science.
If you feel that there is a scientific basis to any of these pseudo-scientific ideas you refer to, then you might wish to take it up on the appropriate article pages where we have more detail on each one.--Bobbing up 15:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
(ec) A key word appearing in that definition is "ideological". I interpret the definition to mean that anti-science includes rejecting and/or actively attacking scientific studies that are unpalatable to one's worldview. Critical analysis of current paradigms on an evidentiary basis can be scientifically valid. Opposition to current paradigms on an ideological basis is unlikely to be.--Bayes 16:17, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
So as I understand it, the only difference between someone who is an authentic dissenter and an "anti-science" person is the motivation. A dissenter is motivated by a genuine, scientifically based difference of opinion, while an "anti-science" person is motivated by an ideology which they consider to be more important than science.
  • How do we determine what their motivation is? They of course deny rejecting science, and believe instead that science (when properly understood) supports their ideology. And of course atheists like Dawkins also deny rejecting science, and believe instead that science (when properly understood) supports their ideology. How do we determine how much is ideology and how much is genuine difference of opinion? Ungtss 01:38, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

See below. It's a question of actions - not hypothesised motivation.--Bobbing up 06:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

  • Doesn't it seem to you that calling them "anti-science" kind of overstates the case? It's not that they're against science; isn't it rather that they're against certain parts of science? If an individual is, for instance, "pro-astronomy, but anti-common-descent;" or "pro-anatomy, but anti-uniformitarianism," why do we call them "anti-science?" Doesn't that smack of rhetoric? Accusing them of rejecting the whole when they only reject a very small part? Ungtss 01:07, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
If they claim to be using science while rejecting the scientific method then it would seem reasonable to call them anti-science.--Bobbing up 06:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
How is it that they "reject" science while "claiming to use it?" Do you mean they're expressly rejecting it -- like "Science sucks?" Or are they simply applying it incorrectly? If the former, who's saying that? If the latter, why are they "anti-science" instead of just "bad science?" If something else, what exactly are they doing to reject science? Ungtss 12:40, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
If they claim to be "scientific" while not using the scientific method then this would be an example of "anti-science". I'm afraid that I can't make it any plainer.--

Bobbing up 14:05, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

  • Interestingly, if you read Copernicus, his opposition to geocentrism was in large part ideological. He wrote pages and pages on the aesthetics of a heliocentric universe -- how the sun was much more beautiful and powerful, and how it was much for fitting that the sun be in the center of the universe. The Copernican Revolution by Kuhn is a great start on this. It turned out he was closer to the truth than Ptolemy was -- but he was definitely ideologically motivated, at least in part. Does that make him anti-science?
Our concepts of what is involved in the scientific method have involved over time. It may not always be appropriate to use modern yardsticks to judge historical figures. In any event, if he based his conclusions on empirical observations then he was following part of what we would today call the scientific method.--Bobbing up 06:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
So what was revolutionary science 500 years ago would now be considered "anti-science?" Ungtss 12:40, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Definitions of the scientific method did not exist 500 years ago. Nevertheless if Copernicus based his work on empirical observation he would have been following part of the scientific method. Again, I'm not able to make it any clearer.--Bobbing up 14:05, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
  • How does one differentiate between the ideological motivation of a theist to defend Creation and the ideological motivation of an atheist to defend Common Descent? Both accuse the other of ignoring the evidence for ideological reasons. What is our measuring stick to differentiate? Or is it possible that both of them are ideologically motivated? Ungtss 01:38, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Motivation is not the main issue - actions are.--Bobbing up 06:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Which actions? Ungtss 12:40, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
The actions of following or not following the scientific method and avoiding pseudo-science and such like.--Bobbing up 14:05, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
  • Isn't it a bit of an overgeneralization to refer to all advocates of ID and anthropogenic global warming as being anti-science. How do we know that every single one is? Isn't it possible that there are some out there who authentically read the evidence a certain way -- even if they're wrong -- and are not ideologically motivated? Ungtss 01:07, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Almost everything is possible at some level. The description applies to the majority, if you know of specific exceptions you might bring them up in the talk pages of the relevant articles. And again - it's not about motivation.--Bob
I like to think I'm one of the exceptions:). Ungtss 12:40, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Hi Ungtss. I'm a bit rushed at the moment so I'll post a longer answer later. (responses later inserted above) Suffice it to say that I disagree with your original premise - "the only difference between someone who is an authentic dissenter and an "anti-science" person is the motivation." I disagree in part because it's very difficult know the "real" motivation of anybody - which would make it a very difficult measure. But more importantly I disagree because the judgement is made (or should be made) on what people actually do and say - not on what we imagine they think. Do they follow the scientific method? Are there elements of pseudo-science in their work? etc. I have added a couple of lines to the article to cover this point and I shall respond to your individual points later. (Unless somebody else does first.)--Bobbing up 04:55, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
If they claim to be "scientific" while not using the scientific method then this would be an example of "anti-science". I'm afraid that I can't make it any plainer.
That seems more like "pseudoscience" than "anti-science" to me. The prefix "anti" implies opposition, express or implied. Nobody calls a person "anti-abortion" because they claim to be pro-abortion but not actually performing abortions. Nobody calls a person "anti-american" because they claim to be American but actually are not. You are "anti" something if you are against it. Ungtss 14:13, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
It is certainly improbable that anybody would self-identify as being involved in "anti-science". Indeed any of the individuals involved would probably strongly assert that they were pro-science - despite failing to use, or misusing, the scientific method. Nevertheless, pseudoscientists actually damage science by misrepresenting it (I'll even accept that some of them may do it unintentionally), but the end result is to devalue or damage science. Consequently pseudoscience is anti-scientific in the sense that it damages science.--Bobbing up 17:16, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Interesting -- how does the impersonation of science actually damage science? Those who didn't understand science in the first place are no worse off than they were before, and those who understand science recognize non-science for what it is. Science continues unabated in the labs and fields, and marches on merrily. What tangible harm does the ICR or DI do to science? Ungtss 17:35, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Your first statement is in error. Those who do not understand science rely on interpretation. Impersonation or misrepresentation is essentially a lie to them, a distortion. Dishonesty, in other words. It's dishonesty anyway, but in the first "case" you present, a viler dishonesty. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:07, 2 November 2008 (EDT)
Wait, did I misread that, or did he actually write that? How does it damage science? I honestly can't believe someone with any education at all could write that without being a parody of someone like Andy. --Kels 00:45, 2 November 2008 (EDT)
Did I mistakenly take the previous ediotr seriously? Well, shit happens, I guess. Heck, maybe it was serious? Hi Kels :) ħumanUser talk:Human 00:56, 2 November 2008 (EDT)
Hey, Huw. Been pretty dull without you around. And yeah, I hope it was a joke, or he mis-worded something. I know there are people who actually think that way, but it's scary anyway. --Kels 01:16, 2 November 2008 (EDT)
Aw, thanks... but seriously, me being gone for four days makes this place boring? Thanks for the props, though [smooch]. And, yeah, I hope it was joking, although I suspect it was serious. Scary & stupid. Oh well, we welcome all types on here! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:09, 2 November 2008 (EST)
Would you geniuses please answer my question instead of dodging? I don't understand how DI does any real harm to anything that matters. Are they out taking funding away from "real labs?" Are they out burning libraries? What? Where would science be today that it isn't because DI exists and does what it does? Would creationists believe in evolution if it weren't for DI? Ungtss 13:13, 2 November 2008 (EST)

I assume that "DI" stands for Discovery Institute. It seems to be to intuitively obvious that people trying to hand off fake science as real science are doing science a disservice. To answer your last specific series of questions.

  • "Are they out taking funding away from "real labs?" They are probably not taking cash from real labs, but that could happen if an even more fundamentalist religious government took over in the US. It is important therefore to ensure that people are able to tell the difference. We try to do our little bit.
  • "Are they out burning libraries?" Not in the sense of burning them down - but one could argue that spreading false information is in the same class of activity.
  • What? What?
  • "Where would science be today that it isn't because DI exists and does what it does?" It may have persuaded some young people not to follow the path of "evilutionist science".
  • "Would creationists believe in evolution if it weren't for DI?" I'm not sure. Their objective is certainly to stop people believing in evolution and the Wedge Document claims they are being successful.--Bobbing up 13:37, 2 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the response -- I appreciate it. So our harm is not so much to the process and mechanisms of science, but rather in that some people may have been led to disbelieve in evolution from DI propaganda. Do you really think there are people out there who think so uncritically that if DI gets them them first they believe uncritically, but if PZ Myers gets to them first they believe uncritically? People whose opinion is determined entirely by which set of propaganda they're exposed to? Personally, I think people make their own choices, based on which set of evidence they find more convincing. How do you explain all the people raised catholic that become atheists, and all the people raised atheist that become evangelicals? And perhaps most importantly, if a person just accepts what their teacher tells them (even if it happens to be right) are they thinking scientifically? I would think that pseudoscientists would give a great opportunity to teach critical, scientific thinking in the classroom by contrast. No? Ungtss 14:04, 2 November 2008 (EST)
Actually I thought that we were discussing anti-science in general and not the DI in particular. I only mentioned them specifically as you specifically asked questions about them about them. Perhaps you would prefer to take this up on the DI page?
With regard to your statements about people believing whatever they hear first I disagree with you. The vast majority of people who grow up in a Muslim environment become Muslim for example. The vast majority of people who grown up in a Christian environment become Christian. In an ideal world with ideal people perhaps it wouldn't work like that, but most people certainly believe what they were taught as children. It is the minority who really analyse their beliefs and change them.
I like to think that we are doing our bit to help people think critically however. And yes, I agree that critical thinking should be taught in schools.--Bobbing up 14:42, 2 November 2008 (EST)
I guess what I'm getting at is that as I understand science, it is not the conclusions so much as the approach and process. If a person accepts a conclusion uncritically, they are not thinking scientifically. Even if they believe in common descent, if they're not thinking critically but only accepting what they've been told, they're not thinking scientifically. If people are swept blindly into ID propaganda, they aren't scientific. But if they don't know how to think critically, it doesn't really matter what their conclusion is -- they're already lost. I don't see what harm ID advocates do -- if people think critically and reject them, there's no harm. If people think uncritically and accept them, there's no harm because they were already lost in the first place. Ungtss 14:49, 2 November 2008 (EST)
I agree that science is an approach and a process. Every theory is a "work in progress" which only express our knowledge at this point and science is a matter of "asking ever better questions". As I said before I agree that critical thinking should be taught. I disagree that it's reasonable to teach people things that are wrong on the basis that they would never believe things that are correct.--Bobbing up 14:57, 2 November 2008 (EST)
I'm not saying it's reasonable for DI to teach things that are wrong. I'm saying it doesn't harm science for them to do it, because science is about critical thinking more than "right answers," and DI does (and can feasibly do) nothing to prevent people from thinking critically about their ideas as well as the other ideas available on the topic of origins. Basically, I still don't see how they (or any other "anti-science organization") actually do any harm to science. Ungtss 15:12, 2 November 2008 (EST)

What I've learned so far.

Here's what I've learned so far about the anti-science movement.

  • The anti-science movement is not anti-science because of any expressed opposition to science itself or because of any "hypothesized motive" to hinder science -- they are anti-science because their actions "harm science."
  • They harm science not by taking funding away from scientists, burning libraries, or telling people science is evil. They harm science because their teaching may have led some people who would otherwise have believed in evolution or anthropogenic global warming not to believe.
  • However, science is not about "right answers" so much as observation, analysis, and critical thinking. And a person who accepts evolution uncritically is no more "scientific" than one who accepts ID uncritically. Both are accepting based on authority and rhetoric, rather than observation and analysis. Therefore, science is not harmed if one person unscientifically accepts ID instead of unscientifically accepting Common Descent. Further, no "anti-science" organization I'm aware of does (or can do) anything to prevent people from thinking critically. Therefore, I don't think the anti-science movement hinders scientific activity or scientific thinking in any way, and so I don't think it harms science.
  • Any more explanations as to why exactly the "anti-science movement" is so "anti-science?" Ungtss 00:26, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Actually, I don't think point two is really true. In situations like in the US (and there are some who are trying in Canada), eroding public confidence in science is pretty important, leading to things like global warming denialism and vaccination denialism, to say nothing of distrust of medicine and other aspects of science beyond whatever the hobby horse of the anti-science group in question is resisting. Off the top, that leads people into problematic behaviours, such as dangerous alternate medicines, not vaccinating their kids, not doing things to offset global warming, etc., but also when it gets to the point where it's affecting public policy (and it is) then yes, there is an effect on funding of scientific research. This all undercuts science itself quite badly, both from the point of view of the ability to perform science, and the effectiveness of its findings. Plus, of course, if indoctrination in such views is introduced in schools, that interferes with the development of critical thinking in the first place, depriving science of promising new scientists who'd otherwise be able to add to the field. Altogether, not good. But then, what do I know? I'm not a scientist. --Kels 06:10, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Kels, you forgot to mention stem cell research, and area of endeavor where funding has clearly been denied to (US-based) scientists. ħumanUser talk:Human 13:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)
I mentioned I'm not a scientist, isn't that close? Besides, I'm an artist (well, working on it), which makes me even more under-funded! --Kels 13:59, 3 November 2008 (EST)

What I have learned from Ungtss

  • We can use any modern philosophy to criticize people living in past ages. This is still the case even when the philosophy didn’t exist at the time.
  • We should be able to understand people’s motivations and make decisions about the validity of the work based on what we imagine their motivations to be.
  • It doesn’t matter if we teach people things that are wrong so long as we think they are likely to believe things that are wrong anyway.
  • Most people come to their beliefs as a result of extensive deliberation - and it is pure and complete coincidence that people born into Muslim families become Muslims and that people born into Christian families become Christian.--Bobbing up 03:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support