Resistance To Science

[j_assmuffin]

After learning that my mother considers sunrises, sunsets, and tidal movements to be convincing "arguments" for design (as does Bill O'Reilly ), I have been pondering the question: Why do some people resist science? According to Paul Bloom and Dena Skolnick Weisberg, my mother's (and Bill O'Reilly's) resistance to science could possibly be

Comments

[nobody_]

It's an interesting article--very interesting. But it makes a lot of assumptions. For example, that accepting Crick's "astonishing hypothesis" would be the rational thing to do, when it's a controversial hypothesis even within scientific circles. I personally am not convinced that materialism (matter is the basis and source for all existence, and consciousness is only an epiphenomenon of matter) is true, and perhaps this is indeed because of the power of unfounded intuition, but I'm open to scientific proof otherwise. I just think such a thing would be very hard to prove scientifically. And so it seems a lot of the time, the difference between a scientific view and a "metaphysical" view is just personal aesthetic and philosophy, because either view depends on the acceptance of something beyond personal experience, and neither can be conclusively proven.

[j_assmuffin]

"... accepting Crick's "astonishing hypothesis" would be the rational thing to do, when it's a controversial hypothesis even within scientific circles

[nobody_]

To clarify, let's take the issue at hand, consciousness. It seems to me that the main distinction between people who take a "supernatural" view of its origin, and those who take a materialist's view of it, that it's just the product of the activity of grey matter, is an aesthetic one. The "New Agers" like their view of consciousness because it fits in with the aesthetic they find appealing, one in which everything is infused with mysterious secrets of some sort of benevolent origin. The skeptics seem to admire a more sparse and "heroic" aesthetic in which the world is seen as harsh, indifferent, emotionally neutral. Neither is basing their opinions on direct personal experience; they're basing it on someone else's word. The New Ager finds authority in the guru whereas the skeptic finds it in the scientist, even though in so many cases neither person has much personal training as either a yogi or a scientific researcher. The New Ager likely has some degree of spiritual pride, while the skeptic likely has some degree of intellectual

[dulcet_discord]

Fantasy is always more fun than reality, ya know ;) *poke*

[j_assmuffin]

I am well aware of this.