Thank you, Lawrence Krauss, for stating eloquently, and more important accurately, these issues of what science is and is not. I'm about to have lived 80 years, and still marvel at the irrationality swirling around the issue f existence. Since human psychology results from natural forces, science may yet explain why it's so difficult for humans to agree that just because we have an idea is no indication that it is true.
Science as a holy "one true way" is no more rational than religion as a holy "one true way".
The scientific method is a very useful conceptual device for developing technical understandings about the natural world. It's a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver. The tool works for it's intended purpose, and should be appreciated for that.
The scientific method isn't a religion. It's not useful for everything. It's not a "one true way". The scientific method isn't a platform upon which our egos should be building an imaginary superiority. Scientists are not "the chosen people". Worshipping the scientific method is about as rational as worshipping a screwdriver.
The strength of the scientific method is also it's great weakness. It sometimes works too well at giving us more power than we can understand, more power than we can handle. The two biggest threats to the modern world, nuclear weapons and climate change, both arose out of the scientific method. They didn't arise from religion, or woke culture, they arose from science.
Scientists are skilled technicians. Like your car mechanic, except more highly educated. They aren't theologians, philosophers, political experts, or great sages, and they don't possess any expert knowledge beyond that which they've obtained from a highly specialized education on some particular narrow technical topic.
Scientists don't actually know how much they know about the natural world. They don't know if they have uncovered 74% of nature's secrets, 18%, or a number so small that we don't have math which can express it. But they do know, or should know, that the history of science is full of "known facts" which were later overturned.
The typical scientist's understanding of religion is on a college sophomore level or less. This isn't because they are stupid or uneducated, but only because religion is typically not a field they have studied in any depth, as they've been occupied elsewhere learning other things. When the typical scientist speaks on the subject, as they should feel free to do, it's no different than opinion from your next door neighbor.
In the Enlightenment a growing group of thinkers came forward to challenge the authority of Christian clergy. We find ourselves at another such moment. Today, scientists are the leading cultural authorities of our time, today's "clergy" if you will. And so, just as we did 500 years ago, scientists now need to be in the hot seat of challenge. Just as we shouldn't be blindly following religious clergy where ever they might try to lead us by the nose, the same is true of the science "clergy".
The science community is brilliant at technical matters, but philosophically, in their relationship with knowledge, they are still clinging to the science hero stories of the 19th and early 20th century. That can be a very dangerous business in the 21st century.
Some scientists, clearly not all, have a somewhat contemptuous view of the public they've been hired to serve. Perhaps they think we're not too bright, and often they are right. And yet feeling that way, and seeing our weakness, they are still determined to give we "the not so bright" as much power as possible as fast as they possibly can. And by doing so, they join us in the "not so bright" human experience.
fortunately, now you were in Egypt may be 5 hours but you saw the people on the streets and let me tell you how I suffer psychologically when I hear or read (in arabic) that drinking camel's urine cures cancer as per the say from friends and family of the prophet mohammad!!!!!!!! wait there are more scientific remedies if a diabetes patient eats daily eats 6 dates for breakfast he or she will be cured again unfortunately may be 1% believe that but then whoever dies they say it's allah's will so I see no hope for so many humans to pick up a book and try to learn something. racism is called if you try to say nooooooooooo please take your insulin injections!!!!!!!!!!! so obviously it hurts when adminstartions mix their position as scientists thank you
In science you can tell someone he/she is full of nonsense and they may find that offensive. The only requirement is that I have to prove them wrong and that is the fun. I have seen some real jerks have to eat their nonsense when confronted with data that refutes their hypothesis.
Been following your exploits on Twitter. What an amazing opportunity to go see the pyramids in person (and tour them!). Did you see any evidence of alien tech?...🤔👽🛸🖖😂
Thank you, Lawrence Krauss, for stating eloquently, and more important accurately, these issues of what science is and is not. I'm about to have lived 80 years, and still marvel at the irrationality swirling around the issue f existence. Since human psychology results from natural forces, science may yet explain why it's so difficult for humans to agree that just because we have an idea is no indication that it is true.
Science as a holy "one true way" is no more rational than religion as a holy "one true way".
The scientific method is a very useful conceptual device for developing technical understandings about the natural world. It's a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver. The tool works for it's intended purpose, and should be appreciated for that.
The scientific method isn't a religion. It's not useful for everything. It's not a "one true way". The scientific method isn't a platform upon which our egos should be building an imaginary superiority. Scientists are not "the chosen people". Worshipping the scientific method is about as rational as worshipping a screwdriver.
The strength of the scientific method is also it's great weakness. It sometimes works too well at giving us more power than we can understand, more power than we can handle. The two biggest threats to the modern world, nuclear weapons and climate change, both arose out of the scientific method. They didn't arise from religion, or woke culture, they arose from science.
Scientists are skilled technicians. Like your car mechanic, except more highly educated. They aren't theologians, philosophers, political experts, or great sages, and they don't possess any expert knowledge beyond that which they've obtained from a highly specialized education on some particular narrow technical topic.
Scientists don't actually know how much they know about the natural world. They don't know if they have uncovered 74% of nature's secrets, 18%, or a number so small that we don't have math which can express it. But they do know, or should know, that the history of science is full of "known facts" which were later overturned.
The typical scientist's understanding of religion is on a college sophomore level or less. This isn't because they are stupid or uneducated, but only because religion is typically not a field they have studied in any depth, as they've been occupied elsewhere learning other things. When the typical scientist speaks on the subject, as they should feel free to do, it's no different than opinion from your next door neighbor.
In the Enlightenment a growing group of thinkers came forward to challenge the authority of Christian clergy. We find ourselves at another such moment. Today, scientists are the leading cultural authorities of our time, today's "clergy" if you will. And so, just as we did 500 years ago, scientists now need to be in the hot seat of challenge. Just as we shouldn't be blindly following religious clergy where ever they might try to lead us by the nose, the same is true of the science "clergy".
The science community is brilliant at technical matters, but philosophically, in their relationship with knowledge, they are still clinging to the science hero stories of the 19th and early 20th century. That can be a very dangerous business in the 21st century.
Some scientists, clearly not all, have a somewhat contemptuous view of the public they've been hired to serve. Perhaps they think we're not too bright, and often they are right. And yet feeling that way, and seeing our weakness, they are still determined to give we "the not so bright" as much power as possible as fast as they possibly can. And by doing so, they join us in the "not so bright" human experience.
fortunately, now you were in Egypt may be 5 hours but you saw the people on the streets and let me tell you how I suffer psychologically when I hear or read (in arabic) that drinking camel's urine cures cancer as per the say from friends and family of the prophet mohammad!!!!!!!! wait there are more scientific remedies if a diabetes patient eats daily eats 6 dates for breakfast he or she will be cured again unfortunately may be 1% believe that but then whoever dies they say it's allah's will so I see no hope for so many humans to pick up a book and try to learn something. racism is called if you try to say nooooooooooo please take your insulin injections!!!!!!!!!!! so obviously it hurts when adminstartions mix their position as scientists thank you
In science you can tell someone he/she is full of nonsense and they may find that offensive. The only requirement is that I have to prove them wrong and that is the fun. I have seen some real jerks have to eat their nonsense when confronted with data that refutes their hypothesis.
I listened to that podcast. You spoke very well. Thanks
Been following your exploits on Twitter. What an amazing opportunity to go see the pyramids in person (and tour them!). Did you see any evidence of alien tech?...🤔👽🛸🖖😂
Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson would be proud.