3 Comments

Hehe - I remember the dead salmon experiment! More like this please.

Expand full comment

Nice essay. On your Appendix #2, I think what you referred to is belief, not religion. Religion is immutable; belief is malleable. Philosophically, belief has always been a part of science.

Expand full comment

I agree that mutability is a good differentiator. I think that's what I was getting at in saying "steadfast beliefs even in the face of opposing evidence". Obviously scientists do change their beliefs on certain things when presented with opposing evidence. But what I was trying to address is perhaps bigger-picture beliefs that are not resolvable in the immediate horizon that seemingly no amount of evidence can change for that person. For example, are V1 neurons just filters? AFAIK, there are strong arguments on both sides, and I don't feel like I have the knowledge to pick a side until there is a more definitive answer. But established vision modelers pick a side, stick to it, and use that to frame their research career. Maybe dogma is a better word?

Another way of differentiating between belief and religion could be that religion is more existential. Anecdotally, it feels like these debates can get very personal, but existential may be too much of a stretch.

Expand full comment