I'm bound to love this because ... well, it's John Cleese. And it hopes to compartmentalize Science and Religion and keep them from hurting each other. In this sense, the statement is like theological arguments about 'non-overlapping magisteria.'
It's disingenuous, though, to pretend that Science doesn't and shouldn't inflect belief. While Science itself may not itself be a belief system, part of its business is to determine whether belief systems have predictive value (and implicitly assert that -- if they don't -- they should be discarded).
I don't think its disingenous, I think its speaking to a different effect:
I remember someone telling me I couldn't question something becuase it was "scientific". I countered with, "when you stop questioning, it stops being science". (I didn't use the word "questioning", it was a slightly different context).
He informed me that's not how it works. Once something is scientifically demonstrated, its proven, and the undeniable truth.
Again, I pointed out that path inevitably leads to ideas like "scientific management" and "eugenics".
I think this is the attitude Cleese is attempting to address, and I strongly agree with Cleese's sentiment.
I'll buy that. Though you'll note, it leads to a lot of time-wasting conversations (and wrong-way votes and misguided energy policy and horrors unimaginable) with anti-vaxxers, climate deniers, Shockleyists, and people who think the oil industry is suppressing general knowledge of engines that can run 100,000 miles on a half-cup of water.
For most people, dealing with Science doesn't mean "doing Science" or "thinking scientifically." It means "in any given controversy, picking a side, or sides, from which you buy your Science." The problem with these people thus isn't that they're doing bad Science (they're not doing any science). Rather, it's that they're buying their science from the wrong side. Generally, that's the 'fringe' side.
We're well-served, therefore, by all these people believing: "If it's Science (as agreed-upon by a broad cross-section of experts and institutions of global reputation) then it's true." At least so long as there's a substantial educated minority who are either doing science or understanding it well, who can come to grips with the occasional scientific manager, eugenicist or GMO-producer.
But hey, it's New Year's -- hope springs eternal, and ... John Cleese. Bravo, I say. (grin)
It's disingenuous, though, to pretend that Science doesn't and shouldn't inflect belief. While Science itself may not itself be a belief system, part of its business is to determine whether belief systems have predictive value (and implicitly assert that -- if they don't -- they should be discarded).
I remember someone telling me I couldn't question something becuase it was "scientific". I countered with, "when you stop questioning, it stops being science". (I didn't use the word "questioning", it was a slightly different context).
He informed me that's not how it works. Once something is scientifically demonstrated, its proven, and the undeniable truth.
Again, I pointed out that path inevitably leads to ideas like "scientific management" and "eugenics".
I think this is the attitude Cleese is attempting to address, and I strongly agree with Cleese's sentiment.
For most people, dealing with Science doesn't mean "doing Science" or "thinking scientifically." It means "in any given controversy, picking a side, or sides, from which you buy your Science." The problem with these people thus isn't that they're doing bad Science (they're not doing any science). Rather, it's that they're buying their science from the wrong side. Generally, that's the 'fringe' side.
We're well-served, therefore, by all these people believing: "If it's Science (as agreed-upon by a broad cross-section of experts and institutions of global reputation) then it's true." At least so long as there's a substantial educated minority who are either doing science or understanding it well, who can come to grips with the occasional scientific manager, eugenicist or GMO-producer.
But hey, it's New Year's -- hope springs eternal, and ... John Cleese. Bravo, I say. (grin)
Kudos to Mr. Cleese.
As you say: Kudos to Mr. Cleese.