[ SECRET POST #2767 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2767 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04. [broken]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.













Notes:

Work. Again. Sorry if response time is slow. :(

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 011 secrets from Secret Submission Post #394.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big (also random unsubstantiated claims about famous people) ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Well, okay, there's multiple things going on here, I think.

First, yes, science-as-critical-thinking is important, but I would argue that it makes more sense to think of it as, you know, critical thinking. I think that makes a lot more sense and is a lot clearer. And yes, being able to think well is generally useful - but that's not what the original poster of the thread, or really anyone else, was talking about.

Second, I don't think that science is useful only theoretically. I think and said that it has a great variety of practical applications. And I agree completely that science informs all of our actions and that it's the best method for a real understanding and explanation of the world around us. But I also said that you don't have to know about those as science to benefit from them or be knowledgeable about them. And I think the same is true here, mutatis mutandis - you don't have to know the underlying theory to be able to engage with the practical effects. You don't need to know anything about Newton's laws of motion to comprehend the way that momentum and speed and car crashes work. In fact, I think almost everyone has at least some intuitive understanding of Newtonian mechanics, if on no other basis than experiential, whether or not they understand the underlying principles. You point it out yourself - pans stay hot for a long time, whether or not that you know that it's a principle of thermodynamics or whether you simply know that hot metal things stay hot for a long time. And you don't have to be intensely learned about the underlying scientific principles of these things to be a knowledgeable person. Of course there are certain fields of interest where it helps in specific and practical ways, but as a general point, it's not necessary.

I didn't say that the value of science was purely theoretical, any more than the OP said that science never produced anything of value to anyone. I seriously have no idea where these misunderstandings keep coming from. You and the other anon have come up with a great many ways of refuting a number of arguments against science that I never made, and demonstrating the value of science in ways that I never said weren't valuable. It's very strange.