In response to readers’ questions, I promised to explain in more detail today the concept of cognitive “intolerance”, as introduced by Professor Budil.
At the outset lies the question of how it is possible that a fairly poor and backward civilization on the western fringe of the known world managed to become super-advanced, productive and technologically and militarily superior to all others in a short period of time. As late as the 16th century, Arabs were still going to Europe to hunt slaves, and by the end of the 19th century virtually the whole world was divided into colonial zones of European countries. But it is not just a question of warfare. It is also a question of a pervasive increase in living standards, increased life expectancy, etc.
One of the things that brought about this incredible leap was cognitive intolerance. The thing is that up until then, science, religion, magic, mysticism, astrology, etc. lived side by side. That coexistence wasn’t always peaceful, but somehow it worked. But then (in the 17th and 18th centuries) came a turning point after which only science was taken seriously and everything else was relegated to a leisure activity. At the same time, there was a gradual refinement of what would be accepted as scientific.
That’s the cognitive intolerance. Only a claim that is defended by prescribed rational procedures can be taken seriously.
I will add that there is one point where Professor Budil and I differ. According to him, science existed before and existed also in other civilizations. I consider Rodney Stark’s description to be more accurate, as he argues that Western science is completely unique and that it has only gradually taken shape since the 14th century. Even antiquity did not know it. The reader might think that the difference is in how science is defined. Whether in a broad sense as any systematic investigation or in a narrower sense as systematic work by trial and error, that is, proposing and testing hypotheses. This naturally implies different notions of cognitive intolerance. But in any case it implies the total superiority of rationality and empirical verification over all other approaches