I don't need to "strengthen my testimony" about gravity. It's just true. I don't need to "protect my testimony" of 1 + 1= 2. It's just a fact. If something were untrue, then I can see how "strengthening your testimony" or "protecting" that falsehood would be important in order to maintain that belief. Monthly testimony meeting to reinforce beliefs? Oh what a great idea!
The topic of religion is a very touchy subject. Feelings get hurt so easily, because they want to hold onto this false idea so badly that it is annoying to have it challenged.
"We are offending people but we are also telling them that they are wrong to be offended. Physicists aren't offended when their view of physics is disproved or challenged, thats not the way rational minds operate when they are really trying to get at whats true in the world. Religions purport to be representing reality and yet there is this peevish and tribal and ultimately dangerous reflexive response to having these ideas challenged."
-Sam Harris
Actually, I've known quite a few physicists who get quite upset if you challenge their theory. Similarly, biologists tend to get upset if you argue against points they are sure of.
ReplyDeleteA great example is the reciprocal system by Dewey B. Larson. The math is too complex, and many physicists/chemists laugh it off, and yet it meets the requirements of scientific theory (predicted several undiscovered elements, for example)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_B._Larson
Continental drift was also laughed at by scientists for some time.
So I'm not arguing your comment about testimony meeting, but rather that you see scientists as above all that. The longer you work as a professor, the more you see that PHD's are just as foolish as everyone else. Scientists are not immune to fancy.
The above quote was during a conversation contrasting the way religious people tend to get offended when challenged, and he was trying to show the way a rational mind should be operating when searching for actual facts. I agree that if you take that statement "Physicists aren't offended when their view of physics is disproved or challenged" is false because it was a blanket generalization of all physicists.
ReplyDeleteIt is still a good point you bring up. I agree with you, but at the same time the example of a scientist letting go of his theory after being brought sufficient evidence, is starkly contrasted by the religious zealots who refuse to look at any evidence and are even offended when presented with it. I think this was what Sam Harris was trying to get at. There are plenty of scientists who would be upset when challenged as you correctly point out, but there are also many who would look at things with a more scientific approach.
I'm a linguist, and I get peeved when people bring up that bogus "Eskimo words for snow" thing for the billionth time like it's some great pearl of wisdom that no one's ever heard of.
ReplyDeleteDoes that count?
Oh, and I would indeed be ungrateful if I didn't say that I know that gravity is true. I don't just believe it; I know it. With every fiber of my being, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
ReplyDelete(cries)
That "Eskimos words for snow" thing isn't true?? Haha I always thought it was.. Well what do you know!
ReplyDelete