<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
On 22/04/2020 01:12, bill w wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.5.1587514345.2435.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org"><font
style="" face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" color="#888888"><b>How
would you react if someone challenged your belief in science?
With patience, I hope, a shake of the head, perhaps a tendency
to preach the values of science</b></font></blockquote>
<br>
I don't have a belief in science to be challenged. Any challenge to
the scientific method (which currently seems to me to be the best
way of understanding the world) would be evaluated in the same way
as anything else, and if it turned out to be a valid challenge,
showing there was a better method, I'd adopt the better method.<br>
<br>
It's possible that the scientific method as we know it now, is
improvable. I'd welcome any improvement.<br>
<br>
A challenge such as "but WHY do you think the scientific method is
the best way of understanding the world?" is easy to answer: Because
it's the only system that has been shown consistently to work. So it
makes sense to use it. It has been demonstrated, again and again,
that sandbags are better than prayers when it comes to flood
defence, for example.<br>
<br>
I think that's the key thing. I don't 'believe' in science, i use
it.<br>
<br>
So I'd rephrase the question to "How would you react if someone
challenged the superiority of the scientific method over belief?"<br>
<br>
Sometimes I'm patient, sometimes not, but I'd just point to some of
the innumerable instances where science worked and belief did not.<br>
<br>
My own attitude to these things is simply 'go with what works'. If
prayer reliably restored amputated limbs, and I lost a limb, do you
think I'd refuse to pray?<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Ben Zaiboc</pre>
</body>
</html>