tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post113617637401159987..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: In Evidence We TrustRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1136264981711954472006-01-03T00:09:00.000-05:002006-01-03T00:09:00.000-05:00i have the same impression as Justin - that the pu...i have the same impression as Justin - that the purpose of the argument was to upbraid the general public -- Joe Schmo -- for not having a sophisticated view of the theory of science. am i right? am i wrong? if i am right, than it seems a bit of a waste of time. Joe Schmo has really bad table manners and no understanding of Beethoven's middle string quartets, either. not to mention his abominable record in financial management. regrettable, yes, but hey, should postman perhaps move to another planet? ;-)Sir Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953581535133000686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1136246202146360292006-01-02T18:56:00.000-05:002006-01-02T18:56:00.000-05:00Patrick, the concerns you point to do sound much m...Patrick, the concerns you point to do sound much more reasonable. Though here the misplaced faith is not in <I>science</I> per se, but rather in <I>those who claim</I> to have scientific support (when they really don't, or not as strongly as they imply). This might even include individual scientists, I suppose.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1136230255689795882006-01-02T14:30:00.000-05:002006-01-02T14:30:00.000-05:00In a sense maybe what he is heading towards (even ...In a sense maybe what he is heading towards (even if he doesn’t know it) is that most people don’t believe science because of a direct logic chain but instead because "Neil is credible". This thing "his credibility" (and potentially that of a few researchers) that they are measuring the understanding of the world against may be big or small but it is bigger than logic to them it would seem.<BR/><BR/>Maybe this is how they see the world. <BR/>It has always been the case and probably always will be that if you sitting here now try to "reinvent the wheel" when looking at a science fact (for example) you will fall very far short so most people don’t do it and almost everyone who does is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Only every so often is an individual smarter than the (admittedly not perfect) sum of humanity before him. That is both natural and the exceptions are likely to be a diminishing group until one day it is basically zero forever.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1136216754926026942006-01-02T10:45:00.000-05:002006-01-02T10:45:00.000-05:00Perhaps this a wildly mistaken reading of Postman ...Perhaps this a wildly mistaken reading of Postman (I've only read <I>Amusing Ourselves to Death</I>), but I think that he may be referring to the epistemic situation of the general populace rather than that of the scientists/religious figures. While the scientists may have a better epistemic situation than the religious leaders, the public has the same relationship to the scientists that the medieval public had with the religious authorities - testimony. I think Postman would then say that the radical empiricist underpinings of science cannot account for that. So, the general populace (although not in America) who knows that Darwinism is true is in the same position as the medieval populace who knew that the Roman Catholic Church was true.<BR/><BR/>I should also note that in <I>Amusing Ourselves to Death</I> Postman uses 'epistemology' in a very odd manner. If he misuses it in <I>Informing Ourselves to Death</I>, then I'm not sure that my attempted defense of his position is sensible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com