| > The intro did strike me as pretty questionable though: > > For the great majority of people, believing in the truths of science is unavoidably an act of faith. I largely agree with the statement you quote. I have a PhD in physics; I understand science well. I believe that man went to the moon. I understand one of the proofs - they left a reflector which you can aim at with a laser. But.... I've never pointed at laser at it myself. I would probably struggle to obtain such a laser and would definitely struggle to aim it and detect the reflection (by reading up on engineering I probably could do it if I dedicated to it very significant effort). So, on what basis do I hold this belief? The truthful answer is that I believe I'm good at evaluating other more indirect sources of information. For example, if a scientist claims that they have such a laser and made the measurement, I believe I am knowledgeable enough to read their publication and spot a large class of inconsistencies that could expose their frauds. But.... I haven't even done that. And this is me, who (probably) has the intellectual tools to explore these questions. Imagine someone who doesn't even understand the scientific process. EDIT: I'm now reading the article and I see that they've made the same points already much better. |
One thing I did realize, though, the first time I got to play with a Geiger counter, was that this was probably the first time I had actually observed the inverse-square law, after nearly two decades of schooling on the matter.