Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: AC <mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Mar 2006 00:15:18 GMT
On 16 Mar 2006 12:04:52 -0800,
diegopig@xxxxxxxxxxx <diegopig@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi again.
you write:
" there are a few bigger mouths like Dawkins who do enjoy going out of
their way to mock religious
folk, but here's the key, not even he does it in his science"
and then you write:
"A good deal of the anti-science claptrap stems from some serious
confusion as to what science is and how it works."
Could this be part of the problem? I mean, if some people don't know
how science works AND there are people like Dawkins, isn't this part
of the misundertanding?
No, because Dawkins in his writings makes quite clear how science works.
His anti-religious rhetoric is something he save for editorial
opportunities. What you seem to be hinting at is that Dawkins ought not to
be stating his opinion on non-scientific matters, because some folks get
intentionally or unintentionally confused.
Maybe a deeper, in the science side, for the public understanding of
science itself could improve the situation.
Most scientists are busy people, and don't have the time or the inclination
to go around educating people. A few like Dawkings or Stephen Hawkings do
write some reasonably easy to understand books and essays on their fields of
science with the idea of enlightening people.
The whole point behind science in the classroom is to give kids a basic
understanding of science so that these misconceptions never need crop up.
But where you have organizations and political groups intentionally muddying
the waters, and if nothing else, trying to rid curricula of any mention of
one of the most important scientific theories out there, it becomes very
difficult.
The root of the problem is that science simply isn't given the weight it
should considering how important it is to the modern world.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- References:
- I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: Marc
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: Mike Goodrich
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: Tracy P. Hamilton
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: Tracy P. Hamilton
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: AC
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: AC
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Prev by Date: Re: chez watt fraud
- Next by Date: Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
- Previous by thread: Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Next by thread: Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
