Proceeding to the second paragraph…
Thesis: a sprinkling of disjointed statements mirroring the opinions of Skeptic & of the James Randi Foundations does not a coherent argument make.
Again, I happen to agree with the spirit of the comment, but the skeptic in me demands clarifications…
I enjoy learning the stuff, and it's important to mentally stimulate the populace.
Is the importance "to mentally stimulate the populace” axiomatic? Why would this be important? I require clarification…
Science teaches people extremely important lessons that could potentially be learned elsewhere, but fit very nicely into the curriculum. The most important example being skepticism towards the world in which you live, and learning to reason properly using observeable evidence.
I would disagree… If skepticism and critical thinking lessons could be learned elsewhere, quite a few people (like self-proclaimed psychics, mentalists and astrologers to name a few) would have been long out of their respective jobs. Yet, people like Uri Geller and John Edward (of the “Crossing Over” fame) prosper.
Some skepticism lessons, it would seem, are not easily learned…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
feel free to direct yourself to the other all inclusive comment.
Post a Comment