Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Only a small note to a brilliant comment.

In science you do not only have to beleive /trust in scientists.. somehow... the important thign is that yo have to believe , understand or think as relevant the scientic mythology or paradigm.

Notions like facts, experiments or reality as an object as understood in our science businenss is pure mythology.. just as another myhtology. An as any other mythology which is quite ingrained we can not avoid believing in it if we are in the business.

For a lot of people science is just a status genrator.. like religion used to be.. but for the people doing scince or understanding the notions of "fact".. and the "how"question and other basic scientific mythologies.. the real leap of faith is believing in science, whcih we do nto feel like a leap of faith because we consider ours special (as any other perosn with other mythology would do).. in the sense that it is a myth as any other one.. and as obvious as any other religion could be to a religios person or buddhism to a buddhist or any gender relation learnt or spatial symbolic strucutre in any given society.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri Mar 9th, 2007 at 04:30:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is the Enlightenment's refutation by reductio ad absurdum.

Here's how it goes: the enlightenment produced both Kant's epistemology which made it clear that we don't know what there is (noumenon) but only our perceptions (phenomena) that we assume caused by a noumenon and so allow us to infer things about it. The enlightenment also produced the narrative of the scientific revolution and the scientific method, and the belief that reason is a powerful force that can ultimately address and solve any problem. Then people like Humboldt founded anthropology. And then anthropology shows us just how fragile the basis for rationalism, the enlightenment and the scientific method is: it's just a narrative, and not a particularly appealing one at that.

We're doomed, I tell you, doomed.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 9th, 2007 at 04:55:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Gee.. that's a great summary!!!!!

But we are not doomed (well maybe .... I just hope not)... if we apply your ideas about a scholars and my ideas about using magic thinking to transmit ideas about science...everything is solved :)

That would make science particularly appealing!!!!!

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri Mar 9th, 2007 at 05:11:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not my ideas, it's Morris Kline's.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 9th, 2007 at 05:33:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You need a scholar who can read about magic thinking applied to maths .. or physics. or biophysics.. or whatever...and also can teach well...

A pleasrue

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri Mar 9th, 2007 at 09:16:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A scholar performing the functions we have just described may not be a good teacher.


"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 9th, 2007 at 09:33:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Teacher of the public.. so may be...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri Mar 9th, 2007 at 10:25:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that we have to believe in science in order to believe the scientists (in their field). That's what I meant when I said "What makes us trust them is the specific culture and methods of the scientific community (openness, peer review, debate, reproducibility)". I could have added scientific myths, heroes and medals...

But I beg to differ: I think there is a difference between the religious belief/creed and the rational belief/trust. The difference lies in the revocability of trust and the radical doubt that is at the heart of the scientific culture (and which you practise with incomparable virtuosity...). The religious belief/creed in science leads to scientism, as Migeru says somewhere in this thread.


"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

by Melanchthon on Fri Mar 9th, 2007 at 05:04:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I see.

And sure.. there is a difference..absolutely .. no doubt.. each mythology is absolutely different, and of course religion and science are...

Although Kant envisioned that both would address different issues...pity, people did not like Kant and his "!how" and "why" questions.

So in mythologies, mechansims and basis , the same.. content, different... and I guess you know which mythology I like more... or trust more :)

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri Mar 9th, 2007 at 05:08:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series