I agree with the premise of the article that a human society based on reason and objectivity simply isn’t feasible. Historical precedence such as the French Revolution leads me to believe this to be true. Science is a wonderful process which has accounted for the extraordinary progress by which humans have changed over thousands of years. It is not without its flaws which include human error in weighing results, inability to duplicate results, and external variables such as financial motivation. How does Tyson propose to account for the outside interests at work affecting scientific research in his governmental plan? Furthermore the scientific process does have its limitations such as not being able to objectively proclaim which human values are most important and therefore which action governments should take. In order to do so Tyson’s “rationalia” would need to be a totalitarian state. I’ll pass on the science worshiping totalitarian police state thanks.
Archives For April 22, 2017
Its rather disappointing to see the faith being weaponized by politicians who clearly wouldn’t care otherwise given France’s stance on open displays of religious fervor. Personally I am not sure who I would pick of the three front runners but their personal faiths and stances on religion are likely not going to sway me. I would venture to guess that any meaningful discussion of Christianity and the Catholic faith are not going to be had. I do think the ever growing reach of Islam though is in a sense revitalizing Catholic identities even if its simply national identity and not religious practice.