Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

Elitism is not scientific and science is not elitist.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: I can explain in many ways and I shall, but for now a brief note. Direction of resistance / implied resistance: Consider the basic law of experimentation, if we call it that - what Feynman mentions a lot.


bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 552.50 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 465.90 centrica AT APPROX 144.80 g4s AT APPROX 252.60 gkn AT APPROX 300.80 glencore AT APPROX 349.00 m&s AT APPROX 310.60 morrison AT APPROX 211.80 rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 832.50 rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 597.00



Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:


Removal of resistance: As is easy to see in Feynman's case, science challenges norms, authority, rules, conceptions, even itself. Unification: It cannot ever start out by seeing itself as superior to that which it humbles itself before in the study of.

As Feynman puts it - the renaissance european world decided that the proper study of mankind is man, and in this egoism drifted away from bothering to study any of the millions of things apart from ourselves which are worth studying. The egoism of that renaissance ethos is indeed 'elitism' - a meaningless word. It is no different to Hitler's 'ubermensch'. Its usage is self-defeating. To call yourself 'elite' is to prove yourself ignorant of the real value and beauty and power in the universe, of all things which science comes down to. And not just science, no doubt. I mean as we see it.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns


Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

1 versions:

1. Server time: 16:38:45 on 9/9/2017

Related points:




previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid


Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.