Originally posted by black beetleWhat I mean is that the central tenet of the belief system can be purely arbitrary, provided that people buy into it -- which they usually do precisely, as you say, for the sake of a perverse amour propre.
It cannot.
It works solely because of the egoism. The jazz deriving after that, well yes is mirrors.
Avoid egoism and those mirrors are broken
La Rochefoucauld is very good on egoism masquerading as charity and other virtues.
Needless to say, scientists are not exempt from egoism, which can lead to strange -- impurities.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSure
What I mean is that the central tenet of the belief system can be purely arbitrary, provided that people buy into it -- which they usually do precisely, as you say, for the sake of a perverse amour propre.
La Rochefoucauld is very good on egoism masquerading as charity and other virtues.
Needless to say, scientists are not exempt from egoism, which can lead to strange -- impurities.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo science over here! I would rather say that this sitiuation is like having your White King stuck on h1 and moving him fervently a square to the left in order to avoid to be chackmated, insisting that your move is legal;
Using the language of science metaphorically, how would you describe this reaction?
Originally posted by black beetleDawkins is one of many, but the cap would definitely fit him.
For starters, are you talking about Dawkins? In such a case I think that his sociological views have a kinda stable basis;
Also, your second quote is somehow corresponding to my opinion. As a matter of fact there is no place for a scientist to hide should he try to interfere scientifically with issues which are not part of his field. It seems that the possible exemptions are validating this "rule".
Your second paragraph is basically a No True Scotsman fallacy. Scientists are only human. That some do not fit your vision of what a "true" scientist should be is not very relevant.