1. Don't vote for ignorance

Comment #61582 by Ae7flux on August 5, 2007 at 9:36 pm

While certainly not wanting to engage in postmodernist style epistemological relativism, I do think there is a large grey are between uncontroversial (fundises aside) propositions such as "human beings are descended from non-human life forms" which would be normally cast in the form "I believe that . . ." and the "I believe in . . ." statements (not sure I would want to call them propositions). I myself tend to think of scientific theories not as collections of true propositions but as sets of techniques for determining what is true about the world. (Please replace with your preferred account of how science works.) To do otherwise 1. understates the power, complexity , and even beauty of science and 2. makes it difficult to respond to creationist attacks of the sort "it's just a theory".

Alhough I'm sympatetic to attempts to reclaim language from those who want to use it for the purposes of obfuscation, I think we must be careful to avoid claiming that things are simpler and clearer than they really are.

2. Don't vote for ignorance

Comment #61128 by Ae7flux on August 3, 2007 at 7:37 pm

@Russell Blackford

Its the 'in' that's the problem

The problem that I always have with saying that I believe in evolution is precisely that it makes it sound like the answer to a religious question. I have no problem with saying that I believe "Human beings are descended from non-human life forms" which is a pretty standard existential proposition. I might even say that I believe 'evolution' to be true, since to say that I believe evolutionary theory to be the best explanation for the evidence is a bit to much like philosophical pedantry for general public discourse. But to believe in evolution: that's a "faith position" and I don't do faith.