• sazey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    You got way too hung on their example. The point was science is tinkering and following weird curiosities but with extra steps. Virtually every major innovation in the last century (for most of civilisation I would argue) has been a result of indirect tinkering, or benefitted from a completely unrelated field.

    • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      You were in such a rush to defend their point, you missed mine. Which is that pseudoscience and pseudointellectualism look exactly like this - made up bullshit based in nothing. I’m not “too hung up” on their examples - that’s exactly how I’m showing their nonsense. Get some intellectual hygiene. Question things. Demand proof and exactitudes. THAT is the basis of real critical thought and scientific reasoning.

      Sure, curiosity can lead to scientific advancements. Or it can lead to conspiracies. It depends on what it’s being based on.

      Advancements are made in the cognitive mortar between the bricks of knowledge we have. If those bricks aren’t made of anything substantial, the mortar won’t save it either. Gotta have a basis in something solid. That’s why we take measurements and data.