> I have a friend who pretends to believe in astrology. She tried to convince me one day that the gravitational influence of stars affected my life. I went through F=G(m*m)/(d^2) with her to show her exactly what she was saying. Her reply was "Well, even though I know it makes no sense logically, I have to believe in SOMETHING."

Heh. I've never understood the gravity argument -- why not try and convince me that the electromagnetic radiation from stars has an effect on me? Gravity, though... heh.

> I think that humans all have a need to believe in something that shows them the reason to their lives. For some, it is religion, for some, superstition, and for some, science. I do not mean to imply that superstition or religion are as valid as science.

I find it interesting that you say that. I'm an agnostic, but I don't think that science shows me any reasons to live my life. Indeed, one of the things separates science from faith is that it is fundamentally incapable of giving me a reason to live my life -- it's merely a system of organizing data.

Likewise, I wouldn't say that I "believe" in science, as it's not a system of belief. Science is just a process, and scientific discoveries are not things that require faith to believe in. The things that scientists discover live or die based upon facts. Belief should never enter into it. You can choose not to "believe" in the fact that the earth is spherical, but you're just deluding yourself.

Also, if any system for organizing thought ever comes along that's superior to the scientific method, I would be all for employing that. I find it unlikely that this will happen, but still. My point is I guess I don't get what you mean when you say you have to "believe" in science.

> Maybe a large part of this problem is the quality of education today. Many people manage to pass high school without having any idea how to think logically, or what science is. I have multiple friends that think all of science is a bunch of voodoo. They managed to get A's in chemistry and physics, without having any idea where any of the concepts that they memorized from rote came from.

YES YES YES YES YES. A thousand times yes. Even getting through college (at least the state schools in California) requires only a hint of proper training in science, math and rigid critical thinking. It's a shame, and I think it will ultimately hurt or cripple our country. If the same is happening in other countries... well, I fear for the future.

> I once explained evolution to a very devout person who had passed biology. Since biology teachers are not allowed to teach evolution (evolution being no more valid than creation as a scientific theory), this person went "Huh. And here I was thinking that scientists thought we changed from monkeys by magic." Grrrrr.

I don't want to get into an evolution vs. creation thread on the Forum, but where do you go to school? I learned about evolution in pretty much every biology class I've ever had, starting in grade school. Some have done a better job of explaining the various strengths of the theory than others, but it's always been there.

> I don't think that the idea of stars as fusion engines is any less beautiful than a superstitious idea of stars. I think the universe gets cooler every time I learn more about it.

Agreed.

Stephen