... then put your tail between your legs

Posted by
Eudaemonic Pie on Jan 30, 2002 at 13:46
pppa18-resalecarsoncity1-1r7409.dialinx.net (

Re: How about not? (Amaranth Rose)


DA is right about irrationalism. And scientists generally renormalize theories which give infinite answers.

Is it rational that we almost wholly skirt the "belief" issue in modern public school biology? -- even at honors and gifted student levels? -- that we skirt the notion of an ethological or behavioral biological explanation of belief?

Rational that we do?

This deliberate omission owes as much to the emerging and tentative nature of the science itself, but it owes equally as much if not more so to a capitulation to religious irrationalism. The latter will remain a perennial threat to science.

It is in avoiding the issue that science becomes irrational. By capitulation.

Sure, cognitive neuroscience can't explain the mere primitives of cognition at this time. No less define "belief." At the upper end, beyond primitives, Baker at Rutgers says our whole linguistic enterprise is governed by an innate hard wired upper parameter set for cryptography.
I say that somewhere in between our primitives and our full blown cryptological "beliefs," we miss the simple fact that belief is ubiquitous.

Just because most scientists are sufficiently befuddled with "belief" as irrational, or because they would rather put their tails between their legs and avoid political controversies doesn't mean the problem is going away any time soon.

It's ubiquitous. It's there.

Look at Kansas. Washington. Now Ohio.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]