Jim heartfield:
> I read this as a little ironic: 'which can tell us how to vaporize great
> cities in the twinkling or an eye or give us Frankenstein foods to eat'.
The irony lies only in the way in which science is applied, which is not always as beneficial as advertised. Its powers are not ironized: science can really do these things.
Gordon:
> > However, if the fundamentalists say that belief
> >should be free and someone else says it should be coerced,
> >then certainly I stand with the fundamentalists on that issue,
> >although I doubt if they would care for my company.
Jim heartfield:
> But this is hardly the issue in Kansas. Teaching the theory of evolution
> in a classroom is not coercing a belief, it is making available a body
> of knowledge and theory to students.
Perhaps not belief, then, but profession of belief is coerced. In school -- a coerced environment for people of some ages -- one is not free, for instance, to say that two plus two equals five or that the earth is flat or that x-y-z spells "cat" in English. We demand acceptance on faith (or at least the profession thereof). We believe, I suppose, that this injury to freedom is overcome by certain practical considerations in the cases given. Can such a case be made for the whole body of currently accepted scientific knowledge? If so it has impressive virtues. As far as I know, however, evolution and $1.50 will get you a bus ride in New York -- provided you have exact change, of course.
> ...
Gordon:
> >whether or not it is "real" or possesses other interesting
> >metaphysical properties.
Jim heartfield:
> Reality is not a metaphysical property, but a physical one.
On the contrary, there is no way of proving that what we apprehend as physical reality is "real." The issue has been in play for several millennia and I doubt its resolution any time soon. Phenomena, yes -- we know about them. Surely the _Ding_an_sich_ is still behind the veil, or if someone has brought it forth, I have not heard the news.
Gordon:
> > I prefer a skeptical population
> >to a bunch of true believers, myself.
Jim heartfield:
> Science, unlike religion is premissed upon scepticism. To look for the
> answer, that is the essence of science. Not to look, that is the essence
> of religion. Conflating the two is making a virtue of stupidity.
Then we must be sceptical about science and scientists, as well. Exactly my point _contra_ Sagan and his advice. --
Gordon