Of course, but we could also go back further and say "Without pre-digesting our food via the invention of fire to increase our calorie per neuron count we couldn't have humans." Everything is built on something else and science that doesn't at least engage the "why" along with the what and how can not only be dangerous, but also not very helpful to humanity.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I wasn't talking about philosphy form a historical perspective @lukestokes, if that was how I came off. Neither was I negating the importance of science.
All I'm saying is that it's in comparison rather easy for the mystics of this world to be ignorant or even willfully ignorant towards real science, because they are already ignorant to or they chose to reject the logical conclusions on which a scientist must stand. That still doesn't mean of course, that there couldn't be a superstitious scientist; but he would be handicapped in any specific branch of science intimately related to his superstition.
On the other hand, the claim that ""Without pre-digesting our food via the invention of fire to increase our calorie per neuron count we couldn't have humans." would seem to be obviously flawed, because there are many foods that a person could live on without cooking them. That is unless you are arguing from a historical perspective. (Or maybe I'm wrong about that one?)
I was half kidding and referring to this TED Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_special_about_the_human_brain?language=en Fascinating stuff, but correlation is not causation.
We are in 2016 and not going backwards. We can say any number of past superstitions have lead to where we are now and therefore we should respect what they have had to say. This is grasping at straws to make something worthless in to something worthwhile.
Just like a failed hypothesis should be thrown out and paid no heed, mystic mumbo-jumbo is an utter waste of time. When there is so much more to learn, why in the world would someone want to take a step backwards to re-learn faulty information is beyond me.
Your choice, however.