Further conflation is apparent in the same article (discussed at Climate Etc.) and even phrased using terms of (religious) culture: «It is to find the essential balance between orthodoxy and heresy, between a total commitment to the status quo and the blind pursuit of new ideas, between being open - minded enough to
accept radical new ideas and so open - minded that your brains fall out.
Certainly, none of us want to be classified as «so open - minded that your brains fall out» so we must find the balance between that and «eing open - minded enough to
accept radical new ideas».
Matthew == > «It is to find the essential balance... between being open - minded enough to
accept radical new ideas and so open - minded that your brains fall out».
Not exact matches
Thus, while it does not automatically
accept any
radical or novel
idea, religious naturalism can help us to be genuinely open to the continuing challenge of the ideal aspects of transcendence, and thus willing to entertain radically
new ideas and approaches.
However, fully
accepting the
idea, provocatively dubbed the «
new Lamarckism», would mean a
radical rewrite of modern evolutionary theory.
(02/01/2012)
New,
radical theories in science often take time to be
accepted, especially those that directly challenge longstanding
ideas, contemporary policy or cultural norms.
New,
radical theories in science often take time to be
accepted, especially those that directly challenge longstanding
ideas, contemporary policy or cultural norms.