Fair enough. Would you say that the places of USA where this sceptitism are strongest are the better parts of USA?
In a way. On this matter, only learned techniques fall under science (as do learning and understanding the instinctual ones).
I do like that anology. You know why? A. I thought you'll like it. B. Passing as a driver without knowing the car is what most people do. You on the other hand wants people to be as good drivers as they can be. And that requires knowing the car. Sounds, traction, engine strength, etc. Fuel injection in this case is the biochemistry.
Wisdom driven? While I really do love the idea, good luck with that (I can suggest more science on the subject though). Also ponder on that one pillar of wisdom is knowledge. Good application of your knowledge is covering quite a bit of what you call wisdom, yes?
I'm finding what your conciousness is and how it works as the more important question actually. Because of its influence and its implications. To keep the car anology, this car can override its driver, force him to take something unwanted into consideration and even replace him with another one. You find this subject boring.
And? What you read from that historian with insight is coming from his mind. Like every fictional story. One part of good literature is that it succeeds in understanding how a human works. And yes it's very valuable. What I oppose is your claim of it being the only source of insight, so to speak.
Adding the scientific method on top of experience is superior to experience alone. Running without the experince is way more iffy. To backtrack to the original question: What do you consider is science? For me, it's following the scientific method.
Bookmarks