The comments ask whether physicists at lectures would be susceptible to the same phenomenon. I'm inclined to doubt that. It's a rare speaker indeed who makes it through even a five minute session without blistering Q&A.
"Mr. Wilson, ve at za Max Planck Institute for Kernphysic invented zis field, and you are doing it vrong! You have neglected ze contribution of higher order terms without grounds, and as results from Bergen, et al show..."
Sometimes, I wonder what a religion would be like with rapid-fire talks anyone could speak at, poster sessions, and critique for every presenter.
> Sometimes, I wonder what a religion would be like with rapid-fire talks anyone could speak at, poster sessions, and critique for every presenter.
It would look like the Talmud, since that's exactly what they did. Most of the scholars were also farmers, and in the off season they would all get together and argue. Someone would present a logical conclusion, other would refute it, etc etc. They wrote it all down, including all the arguments.
I'm afraid you're comparing apples and oranges. The more analogous situation is laypeople reading scientific articles like this one. I imagine the same phenomenon would be observed.
Physicists at lectures are more analogous to other religious scholars (like from other sects). You'd find a lot more skepticism there than in religious lay-people who probably aren't very educated in theology.
You're right. I tend to assume that everyone takes an interest in their worldview, and can argue about it. It seems incomprehensible to me that someone could not be deeply engaged with their own beliefs--but then I have these paradoxical conversations where I learn that no, many people have no idea what exactly they believe or why it's that way.
It seems to me that religion is something everyone ought to be challenging, because it often includes strong moral directives with enormous impact on our lives.
I agree, but with the recognition that people have differing capabilities of critical thinking. As an example, I get extremely fed up with people that use computers with no understanding of even the basic principles underlying their use, to the extent that they cannot troubleshoot the smallest of unexpected behavior; but I guess the majority of people fall into that group, and that's why I spend so much time fixing computers for friends and family ;).
In Islam, there are well-defined requirements with regards to the amount of knowledge a lay-person is required to attain. On the matter of beliefs, theology, cosmology, etc. the criterion is something like, "the subject must be studied sufficiently to be able to remove the doubts that are a person is capable of understanding". So for example, an illiterate Muslim bedouin is only required to understand the analogy between footsteps in the sand that indicate on the presence of a person having walked and the wonderous creation indicating on the presence of a creator. On the other hand, a Muslim that has a Ph.D. in philosophy has the responsibility to study deeply the cosmological and other rational arguments that justify every level of belief.
The bedouin can't be faulted for not studying to the level of the Ph.D. and the Ph.D. can't be faulted for not accepting without question the reasoning that was sufficient for the bedouin.
Sometimes, I wonder what a religion would be like with rapid-fire talks anyone could speak at, poster sessions, and critique for every presenter.
Science?
EDIT: Figured I should explain myself lest I get voted down for being snarky. In science, to me at least, a lot seems to be taken on faith. There are many stories of a wrong result being published and scientists later not publishing their own research because it didn't agree with that wrong result. Combine that with the fact that a scientist with lots of published history accumulates more and more credibility and, from the outside, it starts to look like a religion with a self-correcting facility.
From the outside the scientific community can often look a little like that; but on the inside it things are very disengaged from ritual observance and faith.
Of course at certain times assumptions are made or theories wrongly rejected :) but, in the words of a great man, "it all comes right in the end".
I don't agree. Science is explicitly concerned with natural phenomena. Anything supernatural must be the domain of superstition, spirituality, or religion.
We suffer somewhat from salience bias: cases where the scientific process is successful are frequent and expected. Cases where the method failed but eventually corrected itself are spectacular. There are literally hundreds of thousands of papers published each year. Quick, can you name two researchers involved in the discovery of the electron's discrete charge? What were their methods? Now, how about Millikan?
As for religions, I would be more likely to believe in one where challenges and debate were frequent, as opposed to something more rigid like, say, Catholicism.
I know that's how it works internally, but I'm not inside. Honestly, I believe in the scientific method in a way very close to how the religious believe in their chosen faith. I have no problem admitting that to myself. Science is basically my religion. The difference between religion and science is what you've described and more (an objective measurable goal for one) and is why I believe in it. But I've never done research, never published a paper. So for me, it's largely faith in the system.
"Mr. Wilson, ve at za Max Planck Institute for Kernphysic invented zis field, and you are doing it vrong! You have neglected ze contribution of higher order terms without grounds, and as results from Bergen, et al show..."
Sometimes, I wonder what a religion would be like with rapid-fire talks anyone could speak at, poster sessions, and critique for every presenter.