"Evolutionary psychology is not pseudoscience. How are you choosing to define pseudoscience in this case?"
How anyone anywhere defines it? A "collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.""Please enlighten me about how can define the food pyramid like that with a straight face."
Only if you tell me how cornflakes are a more important part of the human diet than eggs, with a straight face."The people, but of course that will only work if SPOLER ALERT those same people are educated enough to know what "fit to wield political power" means and entails. Who would have known?"
So only those who are sufficiently informed should wield political power, but only those who are sufficiently informed can define who is sufficiently informed. No issues there."So you are taking the worst examples to represent all of them, good job. Also, are you saying corruption is a problem only in science environments?"
Not at all. But since these charlatans use a veneer of science and base all their claims on 'studies,' they are able to get away with much more than charlatans of previous eras. With the internet I can find a study supporting my super-hair-regrowth shampoo in seconds, and most of my customers will never be exposed to any contrary studies."While you are claiming to be a science communicator, you are also arguing for a really creepy idea: "Our species doesn't needs, or deserves, anything like proper thoughts, and we should just let any idiot that failed basic education to decide our destiny" There's a straight path leading from this to populism-induced dictatorship and nazism."
So that's why the entire Western intelligentsia stood united against Stalin and Mao. (Also, where did I claim to be a science communicator?)
"Also, if you to be more credible, I'd suggest you stop using as sources personal blogs where the author can rant about whatever it pleases them without check."
It isn't a 'rant,' it's an in-depth examination of what causes societies to fail at basic things despite having all the information required to do them correctly (by one of the most respected bloggers on the internet, however much that's worth).
"So your problem with him is that a SUBSET of people that like him happen to be people that you don't like, and that automatically makes him an egotist and elitist. Got it."
I would say it's the majority of people who like Sagan that are actively screwing things up today.
"What are you talking about? When did Sagan do any of this? And are you suggesting that there's no such thing as science, or that science is bad or something? I'm also pretty sure now that you have no idea what Sagan said that science is."
The real-life practice of science has cost more lives and created more suffering than
any other human endeavor. And yes, I know most of these aren't True Science and Sagan never endorsed any of them - but the point remains that all these things were carried out by people just as convinced that their rationality would improve things.
"Again, you keep saying "Ivy League" without any explanation as to its relevance. I'm beginning to believe that you don't know what the Ivy League is either."
Choose a major newspaper/think tank. Count the proportion of members/columnists that went to an Ivy League university. (For the NYT I think it's only one person who didn't go.)"Multiple reasons, the most obvious being that it's utterly impractical (or certainly was in the 18th century when the US constitution was created). Since the rise of the internet, it actually COULD be done today. But there are other reasons, being that the average citizen doesn't understand most of the issues and implications surrounding policymaking, and (this is somewhat true today, and was very true 200 years ago) has better things to do than keep up with everything. A republic is just more sensible than a direct democracy on many levels. And despite that, there are some laws at the state and local level that are voted on directly by the electorate."
Why are there term limits if the populace can be trusted to know when to elect someone out of office? Why are states represented at all?"The argument does not require that an infinite causal chain be impossible. The point he's making is that there is no logical difference between asserting that the universe always existed and asserting that the universe was created by a deity, but that deity always existed, so invoking the existence of a deity to explain the existence of the universe just moves the question back by on step and then requires the existence of the deity to be explained."
But that's a strawman. The whole point
of the argument is that the universe isn't sufficient as an explanation for why anything exists. It clearly differentiates
between the natural world and the unmoved mover."Mouthwash, I think it may be helpful to have some clarification on your position. It is clear that you have a strong dislike for Carl Sagan's manner of science communication because you view it as a form of elitism or smugness."
I think the intelligentsia in general cause more harm than good, and that Sagan's philosophy of abstract rationality makes them ever more self-assured. But I don't have a problem with 'organic' intellectuals (i.e. people who are seriously involved with what they study and have skin in their game. Trade union organizers, local historians, clergy, etc)."What I'd like to ask is if you oppose the education of the public in general matters of science altogether?"
A basic knowledge of how things around them work is always good. But yes, I think general education is impossible to have for non-elites, and should be discarded in favor of practical, skill-based education. (Did you enjoy spending half your childhood in public school learning things you literally never used in any capacity afterwards? I sure didn't.)"So, please try not to do that."
i'm sorry, but I'm not sure how it could be avoided or how I could reasonably respond to half the points made otherwise. Every other forum I've been on worked this way.