• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    The huge difference with the professions you mention is that in all of them successful participants don’t wed themselves to any premise. They can allow for the possibility of two competing premises, or even usefully imagine a world with a counterfactual premise, and accurately communicate the uncertainty or incongruence of their views (it is technically possible for political science to work this way too, but rare to find someone who hasn’t picked a “team” outside of academia).

    The irrationality and intellectual danger lies not in adopting hypothesis but in granting them the status of dogma.

    I would also argue that the potential for real world harm of adopting a wrong premise is way less for a cosmologist or mathematician than for a religious leader or politician. Relevant SMBC: http://smbc-comics.com/comic/purity-3

    • NielsBohron
      link
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think they should be in equal footing. I’m just saying that it’s worth remembering that a healthy dose of skepticism and analysis of the baked-in assumptions is valuable in many fields, and pointing out how otherwise reasonable people can end up voting conservative based purely on a single unexamined assumption.

      Edit: and I always appreciate a relevant SMBC link, especially one that properly recognizes the power of chemistry ;)