> There may be some things it's a net win to include in your identity. For example, being a scientist.
I know a lot of people who would consider this wrong, and I've noticed that sometimes, this is correct. I look at things from a scientific point of view, and because of this, I have a hard time understanding and empathizing with people with a religious background in discussion on religion.
I think it would be wrong of us to consider science as a concept above the scrutiny we eagerly apply to religion and politics in this article. Who says us scientists can't be wrong on an important level about certain things?
I think you're missing the point here. pg's saying the scientist identity is useful here, not because of science, but because it reminds you not to take any other identities.
Yes. Moreover, relativism has its limits, science and religion cannot be said equal before scepticism: if you have doubts about a theory or some experimental results you can and should investigate their truth. While it is not possible to falsify religious beliefs, or most political views.
I know a lot of people who would consider this wrong, and I've noticed that sometimes, this is correct. I look at things from a scientific point of view, and because of this, I have a hard time understanding and empathizing with people with a religious background in discussion on religion.
I think it would be wrong of us to consider science as a concept above the scrutiny we eagerly apply to religion and politics in this article. Who says us scientists can't be wrong on an important level about certain things?