(As well as the usual spacecraft argument against Geocentrism.) It remains to be seen whether he is a decent economist or not (I tend to suspect he is not quite that), but he has shown one good grasp of scientific principle which is very relevant for the argument "science works":
It is not uncommon for us to know how to use things without understanding why they work. Sailors used magnetic compasses long before there was a satisfactory theory of magnetism. Animal breeders had a working knowledge of genetics long before Gregor Mendel explained genetic principles.
From preview of Kindle edition of his book:
The Mystery Of Capital
http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Hernando-Soto-ebook/dp/B004FV4XTE/ref=la_B001HMNIIG_1_1/188-5970856-2060456?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398502234&sr=1-1
The point answered is of course Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins claiming "since science works, we trust its understanding" (but generally they formulate the point with less distinction between engineering and theoretic understanding).
If a culture of the past could be wrong about why sth works and still right about how it works, the culture of the present can so too./HGL
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire