Is There a Difference Between Religious and Political Truths?

3min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

The science is pretty clear about the realities of climate tat global warming, and that vaccines don't cause autism and so on. But when it comes down to policy, then people maybe resist wanting to do something whatever the consensus is. I i been kind of toying around with different truths, this idea of different truths. There's empirical truths, and we shouldn't, in principle, be able to get to those. But what about religious truths or political truths? Tis just take is my favorite exampleoow. Jesus of nazareth probably really existed.

Everyone has heard of the term “pseudoscience”, typically used to describe something that looks like science, but is somehow false, misleading, or unproven. Many would be able to agree on a list of things that fall under its umbrella — astrology, phrenology, UFOlogy, creationism, and eugenics might come to mind. But defining what makes these fields “pseudo” is a far more complex issue. Given the virulence of contemporary disputes over the denial of climate change and anti-vaccination movements — both of which display allegations of “pseudoscience” on all sides — there is a clear need to better understand issues of scientific demarcation. Shermer and Gordin explore the philosophical and historical attempts to address this problem of demarcation.