posted by (anonymous) at 05:22pm on 2009-06-02
"Why does, "Women must suffer because my religious belief allows no shades of grey, no examination of outcomes, and no possibility that I've somehow gotten it wrong, and everyone around me must act in accordance with my beliefs whether they believe the same things or not," sound familiar? "

Replace "religious" with "scientific" (in which case, science is the religion in question) and you've covered an awful lot of ground there.
eftychia: Lego-ish figure in blue dress, with beard and breasts, holding sword and electric guitar (lego-blue)
posted by [personal profile] eftychia at 08:05pm on 2009-06-02
Sounds like pretty poor science -- but then again, I've seen non-scientists perform the "science has all the answers, therefore the science I learned in grade school must be absolute, complete, and unchanging" fail, along with the "learn just enough of the science to justify the conclusions I walked in with, then stop looking lest I learn something that challenges me" pattern that has helped perpetuate needless misery so much over time.

Worse, I've seen these types of unscience from folks who really ought to know better, whose very professions rely so heavily on the real science of others, like doctors. Often.

Tangentially, when I called someone on the "folks in the middle ages had to use so many spices to mask the taste of rotting meat" bogon in AEU a few weeks ago, they attacked my writing style as an excuse to not have to review the cherished beliefs they'd learned from their third-grade teacher, ignoring my logic and my references. It seems there's a type of rigidity there that goes with the science-as-religion thinking that I think you're talking about, though I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion about what you were referring to.

Links

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31