Re: Holy ***!

Shawn wrote:
> I agree for the most part. I think a more effective approach would be
> if the mainstream public were directly engaged by critical thinkers
> rather than being the audience in a debate between scientists and
> skeptics and the dogmatic. Christian churches, for example, don't
> indoctrinate their congregations by debating Hindus, Jews, or atheists.
> They've created a community, made it comfortable and inviting to
> people, and then educate them in their beliefs. Not saying churches of
> science are the way to go, but being able to educate on our terms rather
> than in the adversarial format of debate is much more efficient.

I think it's better not to be adversarial, but part of learning the
scientific method is learning what *isn't* the scientific method.
Most people have been exposed to partly non-scientific ideas from an
early age and it's pretty illuminating to show which parts are and
which parts aren't scientific, so long as it's not done with blatant
disregard to people's sensibilities.

This is particularly important, especially as some religions learn
the vocabulary and gestures of science, but don't always incorporate
the core principles of science, possibly because they find those core
principles threatening.

Brian Tung <brian@xxxxxxx>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt
.

Quantcast