...and strangely enough, I think that many of the defenders of Science may be fanatic in their defence of it because they are in doubt that another explanation, based upon another hypothesis, may in fact reduce their intellectual castles to their inadequate metaphysical foundations...
There are so many things that are wrong with that paragraph...
First, none of the pro-science people around here can be described as 'fanatical' by any stretch of the imagination. 'Exasperated' would be closer to home.
Second, I have no 'intellectual castle' to defend. I do, however, think that words should have meaning and that empirical reality should not simply be hand-waved away into a mist of obscurantist superstition.
Third, I do not have any emotional investment in 'the metaphysical foundations of science.' The results speak for themselves, and they speak louder than any philosophical musings. I do, however, hold an emotional as well as a rational objection to having my profession consistently and consciously misrepresented by charlatans like Michael Behe and Deepak Chopra who are looking to separate the easily impressionable from their money.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Firstly: Peace, brother - if you were a fanatic you wouldn't be here!
And I have no problem with your other two points except that I don't know enough about either Behe or Chopra to make a judgment on them. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
....Unless you count the 3 Smiths hammering out a consensus outside the Stockmann department store in downtown Helsinki. They've been at it since 1932. Not exactly what I would call forging ahead.
Making mistakes is how we learn, getting it right is the real uneducational status seeking. ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
Here, the Havis Amanda statue is getting her student hat in a similar ritual requiring the skills of the engineering students ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
