Some Homeopathists promise tangible physical effects, not all. The point remains the same - how is value determined?
Why shouldn't I teach Q-Anon theory in the classroom, but as a humanity, not a science? or Reality distortion field theory? Witch studies?
Claiming different standards of value feels a lot like the distinction: "science for the world, religion for the soul"
If I had a criticism for the arrogant SW devs depicted earlier as representing a majority, it would be that they don't appreciate logic/science in STEM (or their ability to apply it), not that they apply it to everything.
It's a good question, I'm not sure I'd have an insightful answer there. Surely there's a difference between Q-Anon, the brain-child of one guy just a few years ago, and questions like "how to derive meaning in life?", "how to be a good person?", which have been discussed in virtually every culture over millennia. Q-Anon may be an interesting case study of some aspect of our current zeitgeist and on the nature of truth and could play a role in understanding some small part of the "meaning in life" question.
In my opinion, equating "Q-Anon theory" and pretty much any well-established field of academic study is like comparing one single rubber boot and the evolution of bipedal life. Sure, one can learn a few things from studying the boot, but the depth understanding of the world and our place in it from understanding the evolution of microbes, to animals to even have legs, let alone feet and toes, and an intelligence and culture to the point that we manufacture footwear far surpasses the surface we breach with any one modern example.
If a homeopath isn't promising tangible physical effects (and isn't charging $19.99 per dose, haha) but just spiritual effects, well I don't know. I wouldn't try to judge the validity of his spiritual claims against modern medicine in a controlled trial, no. You can distinguish my previous response as relating to scientific claims posed by certain homeopaths. Beyond those physical claims, anything else doesn't sound too far from a religious claim.
> science for the world, religion for the soul
You say that like it's a bad thing :). I'm not religious, but it's obviously played a major role throughout history in people's search for meaning and for how to be a good person.
I'm not sure I understand your last point. Could you say more about what you mean? Their lack of appreciation for empirical rationalism in their own fields lead them to underestimate the value of other fields? How does one imply the other?
Why shouldn't I teach Q-Anon theory in the classroom, but as a humanity, not a science? or Reality distortion field theory? Witch studies?
Claiming different standards of value feels a lot like the distinction: "science for the world, religion for the soul"
If I had a criticism for the arrogant SW devs depicted earlier as representing a majority, it would be that they don't appreciate logic/science in STEM (or their ability to apply it), not that they apply it to everything.