RE: Do you wish there's a god?
April 5, 2019 at 1:42 pm
(This post was last modified: April 5, 2019 at 1:58 pm by Acrobat.)
(April 5, 2019 at 12:38 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:(April 5, 2019 at 12:21 pm)Acrobat Wrote: What real cognitive biases did we have to work against to invent computers? Did we have to work against cognitive biases to invent the wheel, or figure out how to make a fire?
We directly perceived that round things roll and flammable things burn. We also directly perceived that the sky is a dome, the moon probably not that much higher than the mountaintops, and the earth a disk that you could see once on a mountaintop. The method we used to make wheels and fire was observation tested by trial and error. After all, not all round things make good wheels, and not all flammable things are easy to set on fire. That's not even getting into the best tools for making them. We used a method to figure out how to make those things, different primarily in complexity from how we figured out that our world is roughly an oblate spheroid, the moon is hundreds of thousands of miles higher than the highest mountains, and how to make computers. The knowledge didn't spring from our brows fully formed like Athena from the brow of Zeus.
You're moving the goal post. You earlier claimed that the scientific method is some sort of cure for the limitations imposed on us by our biases. This is what I'm arguing against. Not the variety of benefits, inventions, discoveries that were a product of it.
Let view strong biases as a disease, and imagine the scientific method as a cure to that disease. We'll use a creationist with his strong biases as an example, explain to me how I can cure his disease, his biases, with the scientific method?
Will his biases prevent him from applying the scientific method properly? Does he have to set his biases aside first, before applying it?