Very well done. I like the contrasting as it enables a clear understanding. Perhaps you can add on to it in time?

Humans can only be broadly categorised. Such categorisations are always going to be quite limited in accuracy and functionality when applied to a particular human as humans are so nuanced.
The bigger the list gets the more problematic it becomes.

I doubt there is really "pre-science".
Science is rather a spectrum from minimal to maximal scientific rigor.

I doubt there is really "pre-science".
Science is rather a spectrum from minimal to maximal scientific rigor. — Yohan

Can you suggest a better label than "pre-science"?

I might say 'pre-scientific rigor' vs 'scientifically rigorous'

All is relative and therefor I find this first draft a bit shortsighted and prejudiced as not every person with a religious orientation is exclusively non-scientific and vice versa. It would atleast take an entire book to distinquish between the different characters of which this forum is comprised.

The trouble you went through to share your ideas! I'm sure everybody's thankful as I am. The categories you use to compare prescientific and post scientific weltanschauungs are awesome.

However, absit iniuria, science has a rather disturbing down side which can be summed up in the quote below:

So we're just bags of chemistry? — Neil deGrasse Tyson

Too much information, woah!

science has a rather disturbing down side which can be summed up in the quote below:
So we're just bags of chemistry?
— Neil deGrasse Tyson — Agent Smith

Nice! :up:

.

again with the science skepticism. My own attempts to discuss this have been basically dismissed, or just met with a shrug. But how important is this in 2022 when science is being rejected by so many groups in politics and woo woo counter theories?

It still puzzles me why so many philosophers swing this way. I understand the previous arguments of Kuhn, Feyerbend and others. But I thought surely this mid-twentieth century bias had dissipated in the wake of the amazing work science has done, in neuroscience alone, and the obvious fact that science can admit it’s faults and update them (ex. Newtonian physics).

Science and philosophy have a common ancestry. And many many philosophers tried to make philosophy more scientific in practice - another thing that no one here seems willing to admit.

The divide strikes me as petty competition between disciplines and makes both sides look like high school-level combatants.

, Why call the christian side of your table "pre-science"?

So we're just bags of chemistry?

can you source this quote for me?

true dat

It looks like progressives vs regressives. I guess I don't see the purpose of it.

Why call the christian side of your table "pre-science"? — Banno

I take science as we know it today as beginning about the time of Newton.
Christianity originated before modern science.

So what. Your left column sets out christian conservatism. Your right side sets out liberal humanism. The word "science" is superfluous, even misleading. Science is what results from adopting a liberal humanist perspective.

That is, you haven't set science against pre-science so much as christianity against liberal humanism. - yes.

But we can enjoy watching the apologist's special pleading... , .

I never waver in the face of arrogance so long as such a face is not staring back at me from the mirror.

Some of your points do a good job comparing a scientific mentality with a non-scientific one. In particular your points on:

- The past
- The future
- Knowledge
- Education
- Expertise

Most of the rest though are not really science vs non-science, rather opposite philosophical or political viewpoints (progressive vs traditional, religious vs non-religious, etc). Concepts like people are worthy are not really science concepts, they are philosophical ones. I can't think of a scientific experiment designed to measure the worthiness of people.

I can’t find that quote, but his video on chemistry is called “the Hidden chemistry of everything” so that sums up his stance. Sure, we are a bag of chemistry, or maybe it should be “an amazing and miraculous collection of chemicals we can thank for everything we experience.”

Or blame….I guess.

Most of the rest though are not really science vs non-science, — PhilosophyRunner

I'm not 100% happy with the labels.
Progressive vs traditional is good but I'd need to resist the temptation to make it progressive vs regressive.

Below is a rough, first-draft which describes two kinds of people. — Art48

Is this a scientific classification, or a prescientific one? If the former, you should include the research and statistics.

I suppose so.

Oh please...

Oh please... — GLEN willows

Your double reply threw me off. :grin:

Whatevs. Bedtime.

Whatevs. Bedtime. — GLEN willows

Sweet dreams.

So we're just bags of chemistry?
can you source this quote for me? — GLEN willows

Why don't you ask @Agent Smith who brought up this quote? :smile:

It's a great concept. One thing though. SInce we are currently not progressing towards a better future (misuse of technology is destroying the biosphere which is essential for human life, social and economic inequality is increasing, not improving), should there also be a "Post-Scientific" column representing an even more mature stage of development that some people already embrace?

should there also be a "Post-Scientific" column representing an even more mature stage of development that some people already embrace? — Pantagruel

I don't know how to describe a post-scientific column. Do you have any ideas?

No idea where you got this from but it is not a very accurate of how the term ‘pre-science’ is used in anthropology.

What I believe to be the singular biggest difference between these is the current modern scientific view is ‘infinite’ whilst the prescientific view is ‘finite’. Meaning we have, for the most part, transitioned from a relatively recent view of the world in which the boundaries were pretty well established whereas in modernity we are in a boundless realm … ironically the latter is fairly limiting psychologically as we cannot fathom the ‘infinite’ where in the past reality was ‘finite’ and more tangible.

What you have presented is some simplistic form of Christianity versus some simplistic form of science.