What? Is this just nitpicking about the language science uses? A bit of a ridiculous exercise considering most people understand that thermostats do not have intentions and a lot of science books are written to the general public and try not to be too technical but to get the concept across. If you want to read the dry stuff, get your hands on a journal.
And I disagree that science cannot inform moral decisions. It's just a mechanism to understand reality, if you don't know anything about reality, how can you possibly make moral judgements that will actually achieve what you want to achieve? Prime example is the religious, especially those who tell dying people that they have to convert or go to hell. In their heads they think they're doing good, but they're not. Cos they don't know that hell is just something someone made up and that this person's consciousness is going to end at death. They don't know, so instead of doing "the right thing", they are just making someone distressed about hell.
Not that I actually want to discuss science with someone who thinks fossils are the claim.
And I disagree that science cannot inform moral decisions. It's just a mechanism to understand reality, if you don't know anything about reality, how can you possibly make moral judgements that will actually achieve what you want to achieve? Prime example is the religious, especially those who tell dying people that they have to convert or go to hell. In their heads they think they're doing good, but they're not. Cos they don't know that hell is just something someone made up and that this person's consciousness is going to end at death. They don't know, so instead of doing "the right thing", they are just making someone distressed about hell.
Not that I actually want to discuss science with someone who thinks fossils are the claim.
