[lbo-talk] The Ungodly Delusions

[ravi]

At around 25/10/06 1:11 pm, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> Ravi:
> 
> There are two parts to the issue: a) the general "intellectual" (or
> "enlightened" or "educated" or "liberal") population's belief in
> scientific theories and facts: while some atomic premises in science may
> be unexplainable, higher order claims are (that after all is what makes
> science interesting!). But people believe in some claim or other simply
> because it is "scientific" (as I mentioned elsewhere, some of this due
> to pragmatic shortcuts). For instance, one can explain the chemical
> 
> [WS:] Ravi, you have an amazing capacity of going on tangents and bringing
> up semantic arguments that obscure the issue at hand instead of explaining
> it.  Where the fuck did you get the idea that anyone on this list or in
> scientific community in general accepts science as an article of faith?
>

Er, umm, sorry to bother you sport, but in my messages, where do you see
me writing that anyone on this list or in the scientific community in
general accepts science as an article of faith? Let me clue you in: I
was talking about my own personal experiences, in particular about my
teachers.


> Now, if you want to argue that there are some ideologues or politicos who
> use science or religion the way drunks use lamp post - for support rather
> than enlightenment, and to gain legitimacy or to assail their ideological
> political opponents - why do not you say so, instead making snide comments
> about people who put some value in scientific method (which is far form
> treating it as a dogma based on faith?)

If you want to return to a debate on science, scientific method etc, why
not just start by defining these terms as well as you can? If I recall
correctly, there was a strange silence last time around ("No
Alternative" thread) in response to the dismissal of the hand-waving,
strawman arguments, and such, and a request for definitions and reasoning.

	--ravi