Enrique Gili is a freelance writer covering Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (The main source of resistance to scientific ideas concerns what children know prior to their exposure to science. The last several decades of developmental psychology has made it abundantly clear that humans do not start off as "blank slates." Rather, even one year-olds possess a rich understanding of both the physical world (a "naïve physics") and the social world (a "naïve psychology"). Babies know that objects are solid, that they persist over time even when they are out of sight, that they fall to the ground if unsupported, and that they do not move unless acted upon. ( Edge)
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
I think a year (longer if you count some womb-time) is enough time to learn that objects are solid, have inertia and are affected by gravity. It would also seem to me that children have a belief in dualism because of the language used by their parents (you pretend to be a kangaroo and use your imagination to do so, you use your brain to figure or solve, you use your heart to love, etc).
The sense I've gotten about the public mis-trust of science seems to come from all the times we've been wrong and flip-flopped (eggs are good, eggs are bad, eggs are really good, eggs are really bad, just the yellow is bad but the white is good... etc). Also we get lumped together as 'they' or 'scientists' so it makes each mistake attributable to the group (if we are wrong about eggs, how could we know anything about schizophrenia or lasers?).
Posted by: Mitch Harden | May 30, 2007 01:20 PM
Let's just remember that however often and to what extent science has been wrong, those epistemologies that would challenge science's supremacy are wrong far more often and to a far greater extent.
Posted by: Science Avenger | May 30, 2007 08:16 PM