I wanted to make the following comment on this post at gnxp ((Its a good post that I was going to find an excuse to link to anyway. So, yeah, read the whole thing.)) , but something’s broken:
Isn’t the original author just pointing out that there’s different normative dimensions to evaluate the worth of a field of study? Its easy to find dimensions that favor science and its easy to find dimensions that favor non-science. Thus, both fields can be “good”, “useful”, or whatever.
Personally, I think the normative dimensions that judge science above non-science are better, but those are my aesthetic judgments. That said, if I have an open-minded person in front of me, I can get close to convincing him I’m right.
What do you think razib, is the beauty of science in our genes and is this why religious folk have to spend so much more time than scientists at evangelism?
Blogging isn’t about conversation, its about showing the world how smart you are… and how can I do that if the comments are broken!