I would never say that approaching a topic using data and logic and science is flawed. But I would definitely say that approaching EVERY topic using data and logic and science is flawed. And with every bit of logic that you can have under your tooth, you will never be able to take out the human factor out of a problem (even if science says we should), first simply because we don’t want to. And science is all about forgetting the context, and denying the experience. Such complex factors that has led the world to where we are now.
I would personally hate that someone calls out my argument as bullshit when based on sufficient scientific data, but I have to recognise that whatever I may say about anything that is logic-supported, I will have to compose with something that needs way more compromises than science and logic wants. Especially if the subject reaches a great amount of people (favourite topics of EA btw). And this contrast is probably not to the taste of everyone. EA might be a good way of thinking, but at times of decisions, in the politics in particular, who said this would be a good way of convincing ? If EA is a research field, using important facts that are nat always fully scientifically recouped, corroborated or supported and simply throwing them out to the public like it is an evidence is of course tricky.
I would never say that approaching a topic using data and logic and science is flawed. But I would definitely say that approaching EVERY topic using data and logic and science is flawed. And with every bit of logic that you can have under your tooth, you will never be able to take out the human factor out of a problem (even if science says we should), first simply because we don’t want to. And science is all about forgetting the context, and denying the experience. Such complex factors that has led the world to where we are now.
I would personally hate that someone calls out my argument as bullshit when based on sufficient scientific data, but I have to recognise that whatever I may say about anything that is logic-supported, I will have to compose with something that needs way more compromises than science and logic wants. Especially if the subject reaches a great amount of people (favourite topics of EA btw). And this contrast is probably not to the taste of everyone. EA might be a good way of thinking, but at times of decisions, in the politics in particular, who said this would be a good way of convincing ? If EA is a research field, using important facts that are nat always fully scientifically recouped, corroborated or supported and simply throwing them out to the public like it is an evidence is of course tricky.