Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This is the opposite of what most people in this thread propose. You do not personally test every hypothesis you come across. You rely on experts to decide that knowledge for you.
People should read some of Bertrand Russell's work on the Scientific Outlook. He goes into some interesting points drawn from speculating the effects of science on societies. He mentions what he calls a society of learned experts. You wont have to question anything because a learned expert will be there to tell you what is right. Quite interesting stuff. This was written around or prior to WWII I believe and it is strange how he keeps referring to Soviet Russia as a great experiment in scientific dictatorships. He ties this all in with social sciences and propaganda , resource management, population control, it is a very cold and analytic piece. Gets right to the heart of the scientific mindset. Not this romanticized Mr. Wizard idea people have grown up with.
|
Was more of a general you than a literal. However, that is not to say people shouldn't educate themselves on the subject enough to have a better formed opinion on what "experts" deem correct or incorrect.
I was getting at the fact that if a person can challenge and test a possibly theory, then he/she should and not take it on faith. If a person isn't in the position, he should educate himself to a point he can make an informed decision with the findings of people who can challenge and test. If a person isn't in the position and doesn't want to educate himself, he probably shouldn't go around acting as such.