Can you please elaborate on what you mean by how that’s dangerous? Do you mean that how we’re taught to apply critical thinking and proper research while being overconfident in those tools leads to poor beliefs because the methods may be flawed or based on a false premise? Or do you mean something else? I don’t think I understand completely.
(Please note I’m a bit sleepy but also intrigued.)
Zachariah’s saying that empiricism, cricical thinking, and scientific reasoning are seen as dangerous by people whose worldviews are based on faith rather than reality because questioning traditional and baseless narratives about the world causes cognitive dissonance. I think that the people who find it most dangerous are those in positions of power on the basis of those narratives who don’t want their followers or supporters to stop believing.
Can you please elaborate on what you mean by how that’s dangerous? Do you mean that how we’re taught to apply critical thinking and proper research while being overconfident in those tools leads to poor beliefs because the methods may be flawed or based on a false premise? Or do you mean something else? I don’t think I understand completely.
(Please note I’m a bit sleepy but also intrigued.)
Zachariah’s saying that empiricism, cricical thinking, and scientific reasoning are seen as dangerous by people whose worldviews are based on faith rather than reality because questioning traditional and baseless narratives about the world causes cognitive dissonance. I think that the people who find it most dangerous are those in positions of power on the basis of those narratives who don’t want their followers or supporters to stop believing.
He means it’s hard to teach things like religion* and woke-ism and climate change denial if you know how to properly research.
*(Religion and science isn’t incompatible, if the religion is more principles based than made up facts based. Catholicism generally does okay.)