Resistance To Science

[j_assmuffin]

After learning that my mother considers sunrises, sunsets, and tidal movements to be convincing "arguments" for design (as does Bill O'Reilly ), I have been pondering the question: Why do some people resist science? According to Paul Bloom and Dena Skolnick Weisberg, my mother's (and Bill O'Reilly's) resistance to science could possibly be

Comments

[j_assmuffin]

"... accepting Crick's "astonishing hypothesis" would be the rational thing to do, when it's a controversial hypothesis even within scientific circles."

I would consider that to be a wise observation. Even Crick has admitted that the evidence for his proposal does not seem particularly strong at this point in space-time.

"I personally am not convinced that materialism (matter is the basis and source for all existence, and consciousness is only an epiphenomenon of matter) is true, and perhaps this is indeed because of the power of unfounded intuition, but I'm open to scientific proof otherwise."

Consciousness seems to me to be one of the numerous spooky little mysteries of Universe. In that sense I am hesitant to claim any knowledge about the nature of it, and I remain skeptical of those (scientists included) who make such claims. That being said, I feel I should add some clarification because I have observed how the "God of the gaps" preys on admissions of ignorance: Even though I freely admit my ignorance on this subject, I still have yet to encounter any evidence (at this point in space-time) to suggest that consciousness has some sort of supernatural origin.

"it seems a lot of the time, the difference between a scientific view and a "metaphysical" view is just personal aesthetic and philosophy, because either view depends on the acceptance of something beyond personal experience, and neither can be conclusively proven."

I think I might need some clarification on this point. I am not sure I understand you here.

I would not hesitate to challenge a "metaphysical" view like "do not undertake any intellectual studies during a Mercury retrograde," but I would hesitate if someone challenged me to step in front of a microwave satellite dish in order to demonstrate the validity of views on radio frequency.

Anyway, thanks for popping by and taking a peek at my poor neglected lj. ;) I look forward to reading any further thoughts you have on this subject.

Metta

[nobody_]

To clarify, let's take the issue at hand, consciousness. It seems to me that the main distinction between people who take a "supernatural" view of its origin, and those who take a materialist's view of it, that it's just the product of the activity of grey matter, is an aesthetic one. The "New Agers" like their view of consciousness because it fits in with the aesthetic they find appealing, one in which everything is infused with mysterious secrets of some sort of benevolent origin. The skeptics seem to admire a more sparse and "heroic" aesthetic in which the world is seen as harsh, indifferent, emotionally neutral. Neither is basing their opinions on direct personal experience; they're basing it on someone else's word. The New Ager finds authority in the guru whereas the skeptic finds it in the scientist, even though in so many cases neither person has much personal training as either a yogi or a scientific researcher. The New Ager likely has some degree of spiritual pride, while the skeptic likely has some degree of intellectual pride, yet in truth, the route they took to their conclusions was very similar: they read something that appealed with a pre-existing worldview they had and gave it authority based on their personal likes and dislikes.