Huh.

[johncomic]

http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2009/06/human_brain_stu_1.html

As I read this, I couldn't help noticing the unspoken assumption that only rational or empirical beliefs can be true... and how it furthermore sidesteps the fact that such a viewpoint is itself an article of faith.

In passing, however, I'd like it to be noted that Dr. Davis is one heckuva rockabilly guitarist.

Comments

[ginsu.livejournal.com]

the unspoken assumption that only rational or empirical beliefs can be true... and how it furthermore sidesteps the fact that such a viewpoint is itself an article of faith.

Well, I'm not so sure. The rational/empirical systems of thought are quantified, subject to revision on the basis of peer review, and so are constantly being updated.

Example: Newtonian mechanics, shown as a simplified and less accurate approximation of the Einsteinian mechanics that rolled along two hundred odd years later. The idea of science is always that it will never explain everything, but hopefully can become a closer and closer approximation.

In one case, the law of parity, experiments showed it was false, and that meant that scientists had to admit they had collectively been wrong about it for decades. Out went the supposed "law" into the garbage:

http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/expt.html

This is quite different from faith-based systems of thought -- example: "I believe in ghosts" -- which are not quantified or verified in any way, or subject to systematic perpetual revision by experts over hundreds of years.

There are no predictions, no numbers, nothing to prove or disprove... you just believe or you don't.