Stephen Fry in one of his criticisms of the Catholic Church, made the point that Galileo was tortured for trying to explain the Copernicus theory After centuries of an academic monopoly, during which time their solipsism included a belief that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, it beggars belief that an evidence backed challenge to that dogma would meet with such a violent riposte. But it did because an entire belief system was constructed on a very primitive scientific analysis leading to a dogma that could not bend in the face of new evidence
The Enlightenment used evidence as proof of reasoning as a means of escaping the grip of the Church. Nowadays this is the secular faith of deduction from observation, known as realism.
But science has moved beyond the observable to the quantum level and the realists have become the dogmatics.
Where the Inquisition denied what could be seen, the realists deny what cannot. Advances in understanding prove them both wrong.
No knowledge is absolute. It is the best explanation we have today.
Remembering the old British Telecom ad where the character ‘Beattie’ played by Maureen Lipman in a call to a friend said,
“Oh but she’s got an ology” referencing a degree though not knowing in what subject
It seems this pursuit of an ology became government policy under Blair and expanded ever since to the point that Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats were willing to abandon a 2010 election pledge on tuition fees to just have a feel of one of those leather bound red cases, a move that should have resulted in their political extinction
In 2010 also though, Stephen Hawking made what was an extraordinarily arrogant comment that,
‘Philosophy was dead’ implying that only those in academic discipline were entitled to observe and debate the pros and cons of science and physics
Thus the first step into academic discipline must be to get that ology first no matter the cost
The main argument against that, as made by the late Christopher Hitchens in his debate with William Dembski is that without philosophy, academia tends to miss observable evidence simply because it’s not in the book
Seems to me as though the pursuit of the ology at all costs can lead to blind adherence to dogma and humanity of course must follow ‘argumentum ad verecundiam’.
Hawkins' comment about philosophy is to my mind as incorrect as his observation on the irrelevance of humans in space time. David Deutsch bats away both arguments in The Beginning of Infinity and each is worthy of examination. The role of true philosophy, because of the capture of academia by relativism, and the cosmic significance of humans because, as Deutsch explains, we are only just getting going.
Finally and potentially most compelling is the role of experts. Should our politicians be better scientists, statisticians or virologists, or is narrow specialisation the leader's curse.
As always John, you are immediately into the heart of the big issues. There are several next steps for The Sniff Test suggested by your comments.
A French Moroccan friend of mine was the first to defend his MBA purely in terms of the network he uncovered. He also argued that the French education system existed to occupy the children while the adults worked or played. The purpose of education is a challenging topic.
Stephen Fry in one of his criticisms of the Catholic Church, made the point that Galileo was tortured for trying to explain the Copernicus theory After centuries of an academic monopoly, during which time their solipsism included a belief that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, it beggars belief that an evidence backed challenge to that dogma would meet with such a violent riposte. But it did because an entire belief system was constructed on a very primitive scientific analysis leading to a dogma that could not bend in the face of new evidence
What is Latin for, ‘but it’s the science’ ?
The Enlightenment used evidence as proof of reasoning as a means of escaping the grip of the Church. Nowadays this is the secular faith of deduction from observation, known as realism.
But science has moved beyond the observable to the quantum level and the realists have become the dogmatics.
Where the Inquisition denied what could be seen, the realists deny what cannot. Advances in understanding prove them both wrong.
No knowledge is absolute. It is the best explanation we have today.
Remembering the old British Telecom ad where the character ‘Beattie’ played by Maureen Lipman in a call to a friend said,
“Oh but she’s got an ology” referencing a degree though not knowing in what subject
It seems this pursuit of an ology became government policy under Blair and expanded ever since to the point that Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats were willing to abandon a 2010 election pledge on tuition fees to just have a feel of one of those leather bound red cases, a move that should have resulted in their political extinction
In 2010 also though, Stephen Hawking made what was an extraordinarily arrogant comment that,
‘Philosophy was dead’ implying that only those in academic discipline were entitled to observe and debate the pros and cons of science and physics
Thus the first step into academic discipline must be to get that ology first no matter the cost
The main argument against that, as made by the late Christopher Hitchens in his debate with William Dembski is that without philosophy, academia tends to miss observable evidence simply because it’s not in the book
Seems to me as though the pursuit of the ology at all costs can lead to blind adherence to dogma and humanity of course must follow ‘argumentum ad verecundiam’.
It must be okay because the experts said so
Hawkins' comment about philosophy is to my mind as incorrect as his observation on the irrelevance of humans in space time. David Deutsch bats away both arguments in The Beginning of Infinity and each is worthy of examination. The role of true philosophy, because of the capture of academia by relativism, and the cosmic significance of humans because, as Deutsch explains, we are only just getting going.
Finally and potentially most compelling is the role of experts. Should our politicians be better scientists, statisticians or virologists, or is narrow specialisation the leader's curse.
As always John, you are immediately into the heart of the big issues. There are several next steps for The Sniff Test suggested by your comments.
A French Moroccan friend of mine was the first to defend his MBA purely in terms of the network he uncovered. He also argued that the French education system existed to occupy the children while the adults worked or played. The purpose of education is a challenging topic.