I think groups that are more prone to dogmatic thinking often treat “Science” as if it were an opposing authority rather than a method of inquiry. Making it clear that this is not the case is incredibly important. Science isn’t a monolithic institution handing down truths, it’s a way of engaging with the world through curiosity, skepticism toward authority, and responsiveness to evidence, as you explained so well! I believe everyone would benefit if more people embodied these qualities in everyday life, not just in formal scientific contexts.
One major barrier is our deep desire to be right. This fuels a kind of “gotcha” culture where admitting you were wrong is met with “I told you so!” or “See, I was right!” That reaction doesn’t feel good, and it discourages people from questioning popular views or updating their beliefs when confronted with new evidence.
I’m curious whether you agree that cultivating curiosity, healthy skepticism, and openness to evidence would improve not just scientific thinking but public discourse more broadly. And if so, how do you think we can foster a culture where changing our minds and acknowledging past mistakes is seen as a strength rather than a weakness?
I had a question related to the line that reads, "It was not beseeching divine revelation. Not politicking. Not war and conquest. Not shaking a magic eight ball." I agree with this rhetorically, but I'd be curious about your thoughts regarding those things as motivators themselves in science. Politicking, for example, motivated the Cold War Space Race, gave us things like modern satellites, GPS, and certain material technologies we use today. War and conquest have historically been driving forces for innovation (from something as mundane as Hershey's unmeltable chocolate for troops to nuclear energy developed through the Manhattan Project). The list goes on.
My question is this: What is science if divorced from any motivating factors? Does it exist independently of what we intend its discovery for? The article implies there's some sort of "pure" science, or a moral element intrinsic to science itself. If it's a process or method—science is often described as such—its application must be considered alongside it. I can't imagine what "pure" science would be, much like I couldn't imagine what the "process" of cooking would be if not for our love of eating.
Great article!
I think groups that are more prone to dogmatic thinking often treat “Science” as if it were an opposing authority rather than a method of inquiry. Making it clear that this is not the case is incredibly important. Science isn’t a monolithic institution handing down truths, it’s a way of engaging with the world through curiosity, skepticism toward authority, and responsiveness to evidence, as you explained so well! I believe everyone would benefit if more people embodied these qualities in everyday life, not just in formal scientific contexts.
One major barrier is our deep desire to be right. This fuels a kind of “gotcha” culture where admitting you were wrong is met with “I told you so!” or “See, I was right!” That reaction doesn’t feel good, and it discourages people from questioning popular views or updating their beliefs when confronted with new evidence.
I’m curious whether you agree that cultivating curiosity, healthy skepticism, and openness to evidence would improve not just scientific thinking but public discourse more broadly. And if so, how do you think we can foster a culture where changing our minds and acknowledging past mistakes is seen as a strength rather than a weakness?
I really enjoyed this one mate, it opened my eyes to a few new areas I hadn't read up on before! Cheers!
Great to hear!
Great read.
I had a question related to the line that reads, "It was not beseeching divine revelation. Not politicking. Not war and conquest. Not shaking a magic eight ball." I agree with this rhetorically, but I'd be curious about your thoughts regarding those things as motivators themselves in science. Politicking, for example, motivated the Cold War Space Race, gave us things like modern satellites, GPS, and certain material technologies we use today. War and conquest have historically been driving forces for innovation (from something as mundane as Hershey's unmeltable chocolate for troops to nuclear energy developed through the Manhattan Project). The list goes on.
My question is this: What is science if divorced from any motivating factors? Does it exist independently of what we intend its discovery for? The article implies there's some sort of "pure" science, or a moral element intrinsic to science itself. If it's a process or method—science is often described as such—its application must be considered alongside it. I can't imagine what "pure" science would be, much like I couldn't imagine what the "process" of cooking would be if not for our love of eating.
Fantastic stuff!