As a scientist I know are how important logic and testing/experimenting ideas and theories is, but it seems to me that charisma is required to sell a scientific idea and make it accessible to the field and then the public.
Men really like to line up behind other men especially when it comes to thinking. And the man's appearance seems more important than the idea itself.
And I think this contributes to the idea that some lay people have that science is just another belief system, after all we don't follow through all the thinking others have done before us, we listen to teachers, lecturers or professors and then repeat what they have to say, so it is easy to assume that it is nothing more than a belief system because it can sound like we are parroting what others say.
At the bottom of this science allows us to trace back through the logic and reasoning to see how an idea is substantiated. But the problem is what are the assumptions that allow us to come to that same conclusion.
For example, Richard Dawkins claims there is no god. I assume Dawkins laid out a proof but he is assuming we know everything about the universe. And we know we don't know everything about the universe. In my opinion, atheists can only ever be agnostics, depending on your definition of 'god'.
But Dawkins has a lot of charisma or enough that people line up behind him. There is no one lining up behind me agreeing that the best we can be is agnostic, perhaps I am just not charismatic enough, perhaps I am a female, perhaps I don't look like what you expect female scientists to look like. But my logic is sound and avoids the problem of assuming we know everything about the universe, when we definitely do not (although if you want a glimpse into the full rabbit hole, I assume I know as much about the universe as the next person, and that scientists working on learning about the universe don't know everything there is to know about the universe otherwise why would they still be researching the field? Of course I am assuming other people really exist and that I am not the only conscious being in the universe - would that make me the goddess then? hmm - who knows?)
The problem with Dawkin's argument is his assumption. This article claims science has superstars, what I've called charismatic proponents of a theory and Planck said it's when the superstars die that allows new ideas to flourish in a field.
Men really like to line up behind other men especially when it comes to thinking. And the man's appearance seems more important than the idea itself.
And I think this contributes to the idea that some lay people have that science is just another belief system, after all we don't follow through all the thinking others have done before us, we listen to teachers, lecturers or professors and then repeat what they have to say, so it is easy to assume that it is nothing more than a belief system because it can sound like we are parroting what others say.
At the bottom of this science allows us to trace back through the logic and reasoning to see how an idea is substantiated. But the problem is what are the assumptions that allow us to come to that same conclusion.
For example, Richard Dawkins claims there is no god. I assume Dawkins laid out a proof but he is assuming we know everything about the universe. And we know we don't know everything about the universe. In my opinion, atheists can only ever be agnostics, depending on your definition of 'god'.
But Dawkins has a lot of charisma or enough that people line up behind him. There is no one lining up behind me agreeing that the best we can be is agnostic, perhaps I am just not charismatic enough, perhaps I am a female, perhaps I don't look like what you expect female scientists to look like. But my logic is sound and avoids the problem of assuming we know everything about the universe, when we definitely do not (although if you want a glimpse into the full rabbit hole, I assume I know as much about the universe as the next person, and that scientists working on learning about the universe don't know everything there is to know about the universe otherwise why would they still be researching the field? Of course I am assuming other people really exist and that I am not the only conscious being in the universe - would that make me the goddess then? hmm - who knows?)
The problem with Dawkin's argument is his assumption. This article claims science has superstars, what I've called charismatic proponents of a theory and Planck said it's when the superstars die that allows new ideas to flourish in a field.
RSS Feed
