But, don't you think to the average guy in the street the scientific knowledge is as unknowable as any mystic's mantra.
No, it is not. It only needs explaining in a way that is easy to understand.
BTS
Organic chemistry for theologians
by Nathan Natas 12 Replies latest social current
-
BurnTheShips
-
designs
Stephen Hawkings was advised to not put mathematic formulas in his work A Brief history Of Time.
It worked and the book was a great success. You don't need to write a quantum physics equation out, it looks like chinese to the untrained eye, but you can explain the concepts and end point in a book or lecture.
T-Duality aaahh
-
Caedes
I wasn't for a second suggesting that your average layperson couldn't understand science. Science is at least as difficult to understand if not more so than any mystic's supernatural mumbo jumbo.
to the average guy in the street the scientific knowledge is as unknowable as any mystic's mantra.
My point was that most peoples rejection of scientific understanding isn't because they think that it is provable as Terry suggested.
This is what non-scientific people hate about Science. It is provable and is the same for everybody and is not hidden.
This would suggest that people who reject science do so in spite of knowing it is correct. I am merely saying that I prefer to think that people who reject science do so because of a lack of trust in scientists and the scientific process. I think Terry's alternative is rather pessimistic and paints scientific rejectionists (for want of a better term and not wanting to paint all theists with a rather large brush) as hypocritical at best.