= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Global warming is a better test of irrationality that theism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (112)
A common error people make when they see an old vs. young split in opinion is assuming that it must be an age effect rather than a cohort effect. Thank you for avoiding that mistake by noticing that it could be either! (Maybe I could use that as a rationality litmus test, ha ha.)
You got me curious! I pulled up a chapter from the NSE's latest Science & Engineering Indicators report; it links a spreadsheet of survey results from 1979 to 2010 on how scientific US adults think astrology is. (Strictly this isn't the same thing as believing in astrology but I'd expect it to be a fair proxy.) In the 2010 sample, people who were young, female, less educated, or knew fewer science facts were more likely to think astrology was scientific.
I should say that this doesn't automatically mean astrology is a worse rationality test than atheism. Atheism itself correlates with sex, race, age, and education level, at least in the US.
It would amuse me if there was a sizable population that thought astrology was scientific and rejected it on that basis because they don't trust science.
This is actually similar to the medieval Catholic church's position on astrology, at least if you understand "scientific" to mean "what passed for scientific during the middle ages".
This reminds me of an old priest who pointed out that people who don't believe in God tend to believe in astrology and other superstitions, and said that was because “people have to believe in something or another”. However weird that might look now, I still think that among the demographics he was familiar with (people growing up in a smallish town in Italy in the early 20th century) his observation (about the correlation, not about its cause) was likely not wrong.
I wonder if it ever crossed his mind that "What I believe is equivalent to astrology and other superstitions." Did he just think he was lucky to have slotted the truth into his belief-hole?
TheOtherDave:
Eugine_Nier:
What evidence are you aware of that the Church condemned those particular propositions for being "science" (natural philosophy), rather than for being "errors" (falsehoods)?
My point was that the church considered the evidence for the propositions suspect since it was merely "science" (natural philosophy).
I'm pretty sure I understood your point. I was asking for some reasons to think your point is true.