Post by Padre Romero on Mar 6, 2009 15:14:44 GMT -5
I'm a science historian, among my specialties are the death of geocentrism, the shift from alchemy to chemistry, and the rise of creationism in the late 19th, early 20th century. I can actually argue from these guy's positions quite well, provided my opponent isn't a geologist or astronomer...these arguments have persisted for so long because it is no longer a social requirement that one learn as much as possible...the split between science and the humanities (and science into its many branches), usually championed as the social force that caused the scientific revolution, is actually responsible for a lot of the pseudoscientific crap that floats around to this day.
People can now get MBA's , Medical Doctorates, and engineering degrees without learning the fundamentals of Popperian Deductive science (what most people would call "The scientific method").
Which allows them to speak with authority on their own tiny segment of science while totally ignoring the bigger picture...I, as a historian with a minor background in geology, routinely snipe down aerospace engineers on basic physics.
in short, you get this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis
People can now get MBA's , Medical Doctorates, and engineering degrees without learning the fundamentals of Popperian Deductive science (what most people would call "The scientific method").
Which allows them to speak with authority on their own tiny segment of science while totally ignoring the bigger picture...I, as a historian with a minor background in geology, routinely snipe down aerospace engineers on basic physics.
in short, you get this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis