I believe in science, and the belief itself is nothing different from the beliefs in god for some people. Science theories are all about proving older theories wrong, and humans naturally regard those older theories as "intuition".
I don't think it has anything to do with being naive or not. Aristotle thought that bigger object falls faster, force is required to maintain motion, and air is made with one element. These are all great discoveries that hold for over one thousand years. They are science. And I don't think they are naive at all. Aristotle is one of the most intelligent people at his time, and so is Issac Newton, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Yet today we regard the views of the elites as "truths" and all the rest as "naive intuition".
These scientists all did the same thing: prove something wrong by discovering something that explains more things more accurately in more circumstances. The fundamental way they achieved this is empirical observations, which are simply endless. Therefore, there's nothing stopping us from proving Newton's laws or Relativity wrong.
The way we come up with scientific conclusions has very similar characteristics with the way we know God. In school, we can reach conclusions by drawing a graph with 7 data points and observing some linear relationship with an imaginary straight line that somehow connects them. Boom! A conclusion of "truth". One major difference of scientific discoveries is that they involve mathematics, which is a priori by nature, and this makes "science" consistent and stable.
It's perfectly understandable that not many people believe in evolution. It's a fact that evolution theories have more evidence than creationist beliefs, but it's never a human nature to chase the "more evidence". We make irrational and hence suboptimal decisions everyday, yet we humans as a whole are not necessarily disadvantaged by irrationalities. "More evidence" doesn't mean it's right and "less evidence" doesn't mean it's wrong. "More probable" doesn't mean it will happen, and "less probable" doesn't mean it won't happen. You get the idea.
Or is it true that elites (minority of people) have more tenancy to believe in theories with more evidence, accept explanation that covers more circumstances and do things that have more probabilities of success? And everyone else is stuck with emotions, "naive intuition" and irrationalities?
I believe in science, and the belief itself is nothing different from the beliefs in god for some people. Science theories are all about proving older theories wrong, and humans naturally regard those older theories as "intuition".
I don't think it has anything to do with being naive or not. Aristotle thought that bigger object falls faster, force is required to maintain motion, and air is made with one element. These are all great discoveries that hold for over one thousand years. They are science. And I don't think they are naive at all. Aristotle is one of the most intelligent people at his time, and so is Issac Newton, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Yet today we regard the views of the elites as "truths" and all the rest as "naive intuition".
These scientists all did the same thing: prove something wrong by discovering something that explains more things more accurately in more circumstances. The fundamental way they achieved this is empirical observations, which are simply endless. Therefore, there's nothing stopping us from proving Newton's laws or Relativity wrong.
The way we come up with scientific conclusions has very similar characteristics with the way we know God. In school, we can reach conclusions by drawing a graph with 7 data points and observing some linear relationship with an imaginary straight line that somehow connects them. Boom! A conclusion of "truth". One major difference of scientific discoveries is that they involve mathematics, which is a priori by nature, and this makes "science" consistent and stable.
It's perfectly understandable that not many people believe in evolution. It's a fact that evolution theories have more evidence than creationist beliefs, but it's never a human nature to chase the "more evidence". We make irrational and hence suboptimal decisions everyday, yet we humans as a whole are not necessarily disadvantaged by irrationalities. "More evidence" doesn't mean it's right and "less evidence" doesn't mean it's wrong. "More probable" doesn't mean it will happen, and "less probable" doesn't mean it won't happen. You get the idea.
Or is it true that elites (minority of people) have more tenancy to believe in theories with more evidence, accept explanation that covers more circumstances and do things that have more probabilities of success? And everyone else is stuck with emotions, "naive intuition" and irrationalities?