Science is not common sense?

Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense in a relative way as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, will involve “naive realism.” Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, generally hold more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense naive realism. “Common sense deceives us all the time: the horizon tells me the Earth is flat; people seem to get better after taking homeopathic pills; spiders are dangerous; a cold snap ridicules global warming. Of course, it is tricky to challenge someone’s opinion successfully if it is based on their learned experience. But that is exactly what science is for. It is to extract human flaws from reality; it is to set aside the bias that we lug around. Our senses and psychology perceive the world in very particular ways that are comically easy to fool. But the great strength of science is that it recognizes the human fallibility that cripples our view of the universe. The scientific method attempts to remove these weaknesses.” Ref “Naïve realism, also known as direct realism or common sense realism, is a philosophy of mind rooted in a theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world.”Ref As a rationalist, I want you to deeply think and not just simply doubt. “Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude towards the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences.” Ref “Scientific realism is, at the...

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? “It is both.”

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?   YES: “It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words “theory” and “fact.” In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.” Ref Creationism (pseudoscience)   Creationism is a debunked religious conspiracy theory, just like its wolf in sheep’s clothing cousin, intelligent destine. The theory of...

Rationalist thinkers vs Skeptic thinkers

Rationalist thinkers vs Skeptic thinkers   I am a Rationalist and supports reasoned skepticism.   To me, “Rationalists” tend to be more prone to axiology, strong atheism and or ignosticism. A rationalist should wish to test propositions for warrant or justification; thus at some point should or will tend to use a methodological skepticism. This type of rationalism thinker will feel a level of accuracy is important, which supports an amount of certainty, holding that claims which don’t reach the level of proof or are resectable do to reason or evidence removing their credibility likely don’t need to be doubted as they lack warrant to even inspire doubt. That is not to say if there is some reasonable warrant doubt will not be utilized.   To me, “Skeptics” tend to be more prone to nihilism, weak atheism and or agnosticism. A skeptic may start with philosophical skepticism thus may use doubt or uncertainty as much or likely more than rationally to assess propositions. Though it to will generally agreed that knowledge requires justification or at least some proof to support beliefs. However this type of skepticism thinker also may not be sure things are disproved without facts to demonstrate this thus resulting in doubt. I Am a Rationalist and Support Reasonable Skepticism I am not a skeptic though I somewhat am a fan. Lol I do not call myself a skeptic, I do not doubt that which is unreasonable to require doubt. I am a rationalist who uses methodological skepticism and also may utilize scientific skepticism. Methodological skepticism is a way of using the process of doubting in order...