So basically:
> A new superstitious dogma does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather by indoctrinating a new generation and waiting for the old generation to die.
The new dogma may turn out to be more true than the previous, but this is not what makes it succeed.
most of the time, the new belief is truer.
you can tell, cuz it gets us new tech with more abilities, like radar and stuff.
it's just, someone who spent their lives believing one set of things are more likely to go "god does not play dice" to a contradictory belief, regardless of evidence, whole younger people tend to be more open-minded.
@dhfir @Hyolobrika @skells
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Maxwell's equations no doubt help reason about electrical and radio things which do actually work, but modern thinking on topics like psychology and economics have little if any demonstrable benefit over past theories, but they do serve well the current political regime.
@cjd @dhfir @Hyolobrika @skells
this all reminds me of some papers I read long ago, while studying philosophy of science. I believe it was... Philip Kitcher (?) that wrote some interesting stuff related to the 'epistemic pureness' of practicing scientists, and the effects of their actions on dogma / paradigm shifts in the wider scientific community.
The TL;DR afair is that there is no hope for 'absolute purity', and even if there was, its not the best outcome.
@htimsxela @cjd @dhfir @Hyolobrika@mstdn.io the jet engine was developed long before the science was understood - I can dig it
