An article at Dawkins has brought to mind the many times I have had people tell me how brilliant ( I am, or scientist A, or scientist B ) must be when they do not understand the science themselves. I have seen some comments which suggest a 'faith based' approach to science. There are many areas of science which I would simply say that I am not qualified to even form an opinion. I will not accept as fact, that which I cannot judge myself. There is no difference between asking people to believe in something they don't understand and asking people to believe something they don't understand. What value is there to having millions of people who 'believe' a particular scientist is correct? It's a slippery slope and it ends in exactly the same place always. How many people actually understand what this person is talking about? What is HTML?, How does UDP work. Is java the same as javascript?, What is an in circuit emulator?, What is the advantage of PAGE over other gel methods?, What are GAG POL and ENV, Is Forth like Lisp?, What relationship do regular expressions have to FSM. Please let us have a video on regular expressions or sql injection and how they predict the big reset.
Disclaimer: I am an equal opportunity destroyer, and as such I am required to doubt the deity of anything including myself and other people. I will teach you HTML if you are willing to learn.
Mind hacking is the easiest science to master, even GB can do it
If the number of people who can be rallied support a concept is a measure of it's truth, then the war in Iraq was justified.
As zombie Feynman said in the new testament of the Book of All Good Bits , "Give a man a kiddie script and he will troll all day, give him knowledge to program and he will troll for a life time".
1 comments:
Reminds me that I still haven't written that post about faith vs. science that's been lurking in the back of my mind for a couple of months now. It'd boil down to much the same thing, though.
Post a Comment