I can see the value of that, but I think it’s doing more harm than good, on balance. One way: implicit assumption that if we spend $2bn on scientific field X we’ll get 2x the output of spending $1bn, so long as everyone is bureaucratically forced to “use the scientific method.”
I’d be interested to hear more from this line of reasoning? Is there a better way to get more convincing stories than to find ones that are actually accurate?
-
-
It's not something I have thought about much before this conversation just now, but it seems to me that we need to know what the audience actually cares about. E.g. the spectacular failure of most atheists to recruit, because they care themselves about whether God exists /
-
and assume that's what religious people care about, too. So an attempt to prove that God doesn't exist comes across to the religious person as "This nutbar is going to lengths to convince me of something stupid and irrelevant." /
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.