Post a response:
| It's not my fault if people can't read. I didn't insult him, then he said I have a very parochial view of science, making it personal. And acting like I'm proposing religion as an alternative to science. The point isn't even that "science gets it wrong sometimes", but a more fundamental problem of "How does one know whether something is true or not?". I've seen Eric make a lot of claims about homosexuality that are entirely based on a few modern stereotypes, but how all of this stuff is innate and universal and just how things are. How is this even a scientific worldview? I even claimed that it's not scientists that are often the problem, but the public's interpretation of what they consider science, mediated by the media. The media will often publish the results of one study, like chocolate or red wine being so healthy for you, as if it were absolutely true. And people will believe it, because "it's science and you need to trust the science". And then if you are skeptical of some thing or another, it's "anti-science". What this is is essentially presentism, where people think that today we are so enlightened and have all the answers, but in the past, people made mistakes. If "science" made all these mistakes in the past, then why can't these mistakes also be in the present? Where is the humility in realizing how much we don't know or think we know, but have it wrong? There's none of that, only arrogance and people are offended when you start questioning their wrong and bigoted worldview. |