Hacker News Reader

I used to feel this way, until I read the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. The author points out correctly that too often the arrival of our current state of scientific beliefs from the past is drawn out as a straight line, and that the history of what was 'scientific truth' for a time was altogether forgotten or not taught. The easiest(), most respectful and accurate solution is to always couch a belief from the context and ontology of where it came from, including religious, scientific and personal beliefs.
As I become more learned with age, I find no greater delight than being humbled by how little we can actually claim to know. In my opinion this humility should be used for our advantage: by the small burden of contextualizing the origins and boundaries of a [scientific] belief, I think we prime ourselves for accelerating cross domain scientific revolutions. Referencing the origins of belief systems is a practice we can employ to benefit future understanding.
I'd argue the same is true for someone who studies multiple religions and their various interpretations. How would they arrive at any greater understanding without having references to the origins of groups of belief?

easiest from a strategic perspective of increasing the rate of scientific revolution. There is of course a short term burden of contextualizing beliefs.

View on HN