We're all (mostly) dogmatic... Only few admit it while others call it faith or science.

[Subhankar Zac]

Science demands evidence and is only based on solid evidences (not theories).
The 5 physical senses connected with the mind are our wires of perception.
Hence in most cases, our sensory organs makes up our version of truth.
Though these senses are always susceptible to illusion, still they are the closest to receiving factual evidences.

We come across a million things when we take a drive for 10 mins from home to college and we ASSUME all of them to be real. The hills, the water tanks, the cars, the cows on the roads, etc. All of them are real to our eyes.
We do not need to go and feel their presence, we know 'for a fact' that they are real.
Note: only the senses of eyes are at play here.

At the same time, the eyes also sees a mirror as a smooth surface and solid objects as solid, while in this case we believe that this is actually not the case.
Nothing is exactly "smooth" and nothing is solid.
Yet none of us have actually seen the atoms and the infinitely fast moving electrons with the use of powerful microscopes. But we believe it, because someone with qualified education says so.

Moving on, many with prestigious degrees in India, China, Iran and even the US have views that according to us are more suited to the 12th century along with religious fanaticism, homophobia and anti atheistic rants.

But in this case, the degrees do not give them the same respect as others who accept LGBT, atheists and other minorities.

So, how does it work?
On one hand, blind faith is wrong, but it's okay if the person has years of experience in the field of science.
Years of experience is a plus point in scientific researches but not if that person speaks something that isn't accepted in the norms of majority.
And we put our faith in the same science that once said that gay men could be "cured" by electrocution.

Actually science or whims of majority?

 

[RationalSkeptic]

Science demands evidence and is only based on solid evidences (not theories).

Correct as theories are based on evidence.

The 5 physical senses connected with the mind are our wires of perception.

Incorrect we have more than 5 physical senses.

We also have others such as:

Equilibrioception: Sense of balance and movement.

Thermoception: Sense of temperature.

Proprioception: Sense of awareness of the relative parts of the body.

Nociception: Sense of pain.

To just name a few.

Hence in most cases, our sensory organs makes up our version of truth.

So are you saying that if you cannot sense it with your sensory organs it cannot be inferred to be true?

If that is the case please explain how you can use mathematics or history.

Though these senses are always susceptible to illusion, still they are the closest to receiving factual evidences.

Yes they are susceptible to illusion, that is why you also use logic and rationality.

Please define "fractural evidences" I do not see this term used in scientific or philosophical circles.

We come across a million things when we take a drive for 10 mins from home to college and we ASSUME all of them to be real. The hills, the water tanks, the cars, the cows on the roads, etc. All of them are real to our eyes.

Actually I do not do that. I think that the probability of them being real is higher than the probability of the chances that I am not witnessing reality and act accordingly. They are not for a fact real in this instance.

We do not need to go and feel their presence, we know 'for a fact' that they are real.
Note: only the senses of eyes are at play here.

No we do not know that they are for a fact real.

At the same time, the eyes also sees a mirror as a smooth surface and solid objects as solid, while in this case we believe that this is actually not the case.
Nothing is exactly "smooth" and nothing is solid.

Depends on your frame of reference for that. From the reference of human eyesight they are. from the reference of the molecular level they are not.

Yet none of us have actually seen the atoms and the infinitely fast moving electrons with the use of powerful microscopes. But we believe it, because someone with qualified education says so.

Uh, no I do not and I do not think you should. I would recommend you look into the research yourself as I did.

Moving on, many with prestigious degrees in India, China, Iran and even the US have views that according to us are more suited to the 12th century along with religious fanaticism, homophobia and anti atheistic rants.

You need to prove these people exist to make this type of statement, but lets assume for the sake of argument they do exist.

How does them having a degree change anything?

But in this case, the degrees do not give them the same respect as others who accept LGBT, atheists and other minorities.

That would not be a direct case. I would say these people are probably more accepted because they are probably more rational and thus probably produce greater works. However since you are not providing evidence of the people that you say are being ignored I cannot tell for certain.

So, how does it work?
On one hand, blind faith is wrong, but it's okay if the person has years of experience in the field of science.

No, it doesn't.

Faith is belief without evidence and in spite all evidence.

That is never justified.

Years of experience is a plus point in scientific researches but not if that person speaks something that isn't accepted in the norms of majority.

That is untrue, look at Darwin's work.

Was it met with wide upon arms by the majority of scientist? No.

Was it accepted by the scientific community after research and review? Yes.

And we put our faith in the same science that once said that gay men could be "cured" by electrocution.

Faith in science? Do not put faith in science, especially since science is methodic doubt which could be considered the polar opposite of faith.

Believe in science due to the sound logic behind it.

Please show evidence of such a practice being created by a part of the scientific community, if you believe it happened so strongly then you should be bale to provide proof. At the moment I am inclined that it never occurred as part of science.

Actually science or whims of majority?

Whims of the majority is religion and superstition, not science.

 

[YmirGF]

Correct as theories are based on evidence.



Incorrect we have more than 5 physical senses.

We also have others such as:

Equilibrioception: Sense of balance and movement.

Thermoception: Sense of temperature.

Proprioception: Sense of awareness of the relative parts of the body.

Nociception: Sense of pain.

To just name a few.



So are you saying that if you cannot sense it with your sensory organs it cannot be inferred to be true?

If that is the case please explain how you can use mathematics or history.



Yes they are susceptible to illusion, that is why you also use logic and rationality.

Please define "fractural evidences" I do not see this term used in scientific or philosophical circles.



Actually I do not do that. I think that the probability of them being real is higher than the probability of the chances that I am not witnessing reality and act accordingly. They are not for a fact real in this instance.



No we do not know that they are for a fact real.



Depends on your frame of reference for that. From the reference of human eyesight they are. from the reference of the molecular level they are not.



Uh, no I do not and I do not think you should. I would recommend you look into the research yourself as I did.



You need to prove these people exist to make this type of statement, but lets assume for the sake of argument they do exist.

How does them having a degree change anything?



That would not be a direct case. I would say these people are probably more accepted because they are probably more rational and thus probably produce greater works. However since you are not providing evidence of the people that you say are being ignored I cannot tell for certain.



No, it doesn't.

Faith is belief without evidence and in spite all evidence.

That is never justified.



That is untrue, look at Darwin's work.

Was it met with wide upon arms by the majority of scientist? No.

Was it accepted by the scientific community after research and review? Yes.



Faith in science? Do not put faith in science, especially since science is methodic doubt which could be considered the polar opposite of faith.

Believe in science due to the sound logic behind it.

Please show evidence of such a practice being created by a part of the scientific community, if you believe it happened so strongly then you should be bale to provide proof. At the moment I am inclined that it never occurred as part of science.


Whims of the majority is religion and superstition, not science.

Thank you for this, you've saved me a lot of time and typing to refute a topic not very well thought out.

 

[RationalSkeptic]

Thank you for this, you've saved me a lot of time and typing to refute a topic not very well thought out.

It was no problem, you would have likely done the same.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Correct as theories are based on evidence.



Incorrect we have more than 5 physical senses.

We also have others such as:

Equilibrioception: Sense of balance and movement.

Thermoception: Sense of temperature.

Proprioception: Sense of awareness of the relative parts of the body.

Nociception: Sense of pain.

To just name a few.



So are you saying that if you cannot sense it with your sensory organs it cannot be inferred to be true?

If that is the case please explain how you can use mathematics or history.



Yes they are susceptible to illusion, that is why you also use logic and rationality.

Please define "fractural evidences" I do not see this term used in scientific or philosophical circles.



Actually I do not do that. I think that the probability of them being real is higher than the probability of the chances that I am not witnessing reality and act accordingly. They are not for a fact real in this instance.



No we do not know that they are for a fact real.



Depends on your frame of reference for that. From the reference of human eyesight they are. from the reference of the molecular level they are not.



Uh, no I do not and I do not think you should. I would recommend you look into the research yourself as I did.



You need to prove these people exist to make this type of statement, but lets assume for the sake of argument they do exist.

How does them having a degree change anything?



That would not be a direct case. I would say these people are probably more accepted because they are probably more rational and thus probably produce greater works. However since you are not providing evidence of the people that you say are being ignored I cannot tell for certain.



No, it doesn't.

Faith is belief without evidence and in spite all evidence.

That is never justified.



That is untrue, look at Darwin's work.

Was it met with wide upon arms by the majority of scientist? No.

Was it accepted by the scientific community after research and review? Yes.



Faith in science? Do not put faith in science, especially since science is methodic doubt which could be considered the polar opposite of faith.

Believe in science due to the sound logic behind it.

Please show evidence of such a practice being created by a part of the scientific community, if you believe it happened so strongly then you should be bale to provide proof. At the moment I am inclined that it never occurred as part of science.


Whims of the majority is religion and superstition, not science.

Firstly thank you for not reporting this thread as offensive or trolling or based on your other criteria.

Theories are based on evidences?
So, since galaxies are moving from each other, we can pinpoint the actual initiation to a mass explosion?
That's your version of evidence?

The modern education system is capitalism oriented. History is simply what we take from ancient writings and sometimes beliefs passed on from traditions.
Doesnt mean that it cannot be manipulated. Akhanatun's story was almost wiped off by most Egyptians as well (manipulation in the roots of historical references).

Do we use rationality?
And that does that "we" include you as well?

And speaking of taking words out of context and then making a scene of victimization, this is a new one where the entire word is changed.
So, I'm just going to skip over it.

And western philosophical and scientific standards aren't followed everywhere. So, that term is very much valid here.

Science isn't about probability, it's about facts.

Unless I have the instruments at my disposal and knowledge on how to use it, it's not research but taking pages off of someone else's.
Not science.
(Feel Free to look the definition up)

Look up Ben Carson, a medical professional who has a background of science yet makes statements about homosexuality being a choice.
And according your defense, if science actually is beneficial why didn't science speak up for gay men before the 1980s? Where was the APA that listed homosexuality as a mental illness?
(But yes, these are either logical fallacies or irrelevant or some other word picked up from the dictionary)

If typing on a DAMN tiny mobile was a pleasurable exercise, I'd given you the entire Mahabharata of this section.

The word "probably" removes facts from a sentence... Assumptions and probabilities aren't in question, simple basic data is.

You just measured up my words of 'whims of the majority' again.
First majority rejects, then majority accepts... Later after new developments again it is rejected and something new is accepted.

Question:- Why do most space vehicles need to propel themselves with the speed of 13 m/sec sq. while the actual known speed minimum is 9.8 m/sec sq.?
If scientists are that sure that 1 G equals 9.8 m/sec sq. why waste additional fuel?
Simple reason: because 1 G being around 9.8 m/sec sq. is simply a very rough idea.
To reduce the risk of a failure, it is important to go over the speed as even 10 m/sec sq. Couldn't make a successful attempt.

Kindly read the entire thing before reporting it for personal attacks or trolling or whatever.

 

[Jumi]

Two things: I don't assume everything I come across is real. Science itself doesn't demand evidence, but evidence is the base of science. It's what it's built on.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Theories are based on evidences?
So, since galaxies are moving from each other, we can pinpoint the actual initiation to a mass explosion?
That's your version of evidence?

Yes. We can. There is no evidence pointed out in this short dismissal of scientific discovery. There are laws of matter, energy, gravity, acceleration, motion that combined, give us the evidence.

Science isn't about probability, it's about facts.

Science is about probability with the use of facts. Science is about discovering predictive models of reality.

Question:- Why do most space vehicles need to propel themselves with the speed of 13 m/sec sq. while the actual known speed minimum is 9.8 m/sec sq.?
If scientists are that sure that 1 G equals 9.8 m/sec sq. why waste additional fuel?
Simple reason: because 1 G being around 9.8 m/sec sq. is simply a very rough idea.

G forces are not measured in speed. It is measured in acceleration. Ever taken a ride in a passenger jet? During takeoff, you are pressed back into your seat. After your body catches up to the speed that the airplane is traveling, you experience no more G forces. That's because G forces are measured in acceleration; not with speed. If you do not understand this, it is quite clear to me why you can't understand why science can pinpoint the BIg Bang with reasonable certainty.

Look up Ben Carson, a medical professional who has a background of science yet makes statements about homosexuality being a choice.

There are always outliers.

And according your defense, if science actually is beneficial why didn't science speak up for gay men before the 1980s? Where was the APA that listed homosexuality as a mental illness?

It's a long story. Discovery, research, etc. discovered that the prevailing theory of homosexuality as an illness was wrong. That's the beauty of science; that it can discover it was wrong and change its mind. That is dynamically opposed to your word "dogmatic" as "dogmatic" is defined as: "inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true." Science is to dogma what fire is to water.

 

[RationalSkeptic]

Firstly thank you for not reporting this thread as offensive or trolling or based on your other criteria.

Oh I still think your trolling and entrenched in your own narrow minded assumptions. I just want to make sure your not going to drag yourself even deeper into your entrenchment.

Theories are based on evidences?
So, since galaxies are moving from each other, we can pinpoint the actual initiation to a mass explosion?
That's your version of evidence?

All this shows is you do not know what the evidences for the big bang are.

There is the drifting of galaxies apart.

Cosmic background radiation.

Galactic redshifts.

Abundance of primordial elements.

Among other things.

The modern education system is capitalism oriented.

Evidence please.

History is simply what we take from ancient writings and sometimes beliefs passed on from traditions.

Then what is archeology?

Doesnt mean that it cannot be manipulated.

Oh yes it can. That's how many religions came into being.

Akhanatun's story was almost wiped off by most Egyptians as well (manipulation in the roots of historical references).

Ill assume that's correct for the sake of argument.

Do we use rationality?

Explain who you mean by "we".

And speaking of taking words out of context and then making a scene of victimization, this is a new one where the entire word is changed.
So, I'm just going to skip over it.

Maybe if you actually quoted the parts you are addressing separately I might know what line you where talking about. But since you do not specifiy, I am going to consider any lines you do not address as unchallenged.

And western philosophical and scientific standards aren't followed everywhere. So, that term is very much valid here.

You are making a false dichotomy. There is no eastern science and western science there is just science. If it is not following the scientific method and using logic then it is not science.

Science isn't about probability, it's about facts.

This is a blatant lie.

A "fact" is something that cannot be doubted. There are actually only two facts. "I think therefore I am" and the law of non-contradiction. Literally everything else is based on probability.

Unless I have the instruments at my disposal and knowledge on how to use it, it's not research but taking pages off of someone else's.
Not science.
(Feel Free to look the definition up)

Again, I have no idea what your talking about if you do not quote specific parts of my response. As such I am considering any parts that I cannot tell if they where addressed as unchallenged.

Look up Ben Carson, a medical professional who has a background of science yet makes statements about homosexuality being a choice.

I don't care to be honest.

His field of science has nothing to do with homosexuality so it is about as valid as saying what a geologist says about sociology.

And according your defense, if science actually is beneficial why didn't science speak up for gay men before the 1980s?

......Because there where so many in the closet there was not enough to actually do any research to determine the origins of their sexuality.

Where was the APA that listed homosexuality as a mental illness?

Yeah when only a small amount of people report having it and usually only report having it when it has effected their lives in a detrimental way it is going to be considered a disorder until research shows that it does not lead towards disruption in ability to function.

(But yes, these are either logical fallacies or irrelevant or some other word picked up from the dictionary)

Childish mockery.

If typing on a DAMN tiny mobile was a pleasurable exercise, I'd given you the entire Mahabharata of this section.

Wouldn't do you any good as I do not believe in things without evidence, and that includes your myths.

The word "probably" removes facts from a sentence... Assumptions and probabilities aren't in question, simple basic data is.

Assumptions are used to make hypothesis but are not accepted as facts, unlike religions.

Probability is used, because as I already pointed out there are only two facts.

You just measured up my words of 'whims of the majority' again.
First majority rejects, then majority accepts... Later after new developments again it is rejected and something new is accepted.

The scientific community is swayed b evidence. If your supposed "ignored' group of scientist want to get recognized maybe they should actually start providing evidence.

Question:- Why do most space vehicles need to propel themselves with the speed of 13 m/sec sq. while the actual known speed minimum is 9.8 m/sec sq.?
If scientists are that sure that 1 G equals 9.8 m/sec sq. why waste additional fuel?
Simple reason: because 1 G being around 9.8 m/sec sq. is simply a very rough idea.
To reduce the risk of a failure, it is important to go over the speed as even 10 m/sec sq. Couldn't make a successful attempt.

That's not a question.

Kindly read the entire thing before reporting it for personal attacks or trolling or whatever.

If it has any form of personal attacks in it then I can and will report it as that is breaking the forum rules.

If you don't like that I can do that, then I recommend finding somewhere else to go.

List of points that went unchallenged:

Incorrect we have more than 5 physical senses.

We also have others such as:

Equilibrioception: Sense of balance and movement.

Thermoception: Sense of temperature.

Proprioception: Sense of awareness of the relative parts of the body.

Nociception: Sense of pain.

To just name a few.

So are you saying that if you cannot sense it with your sensory organs it cannot be inferred to be true?

If that is the case please explain how you can use mathematics

You need to prove these people exist to make this type of statement, but lets assume for the sake of argument they do exist.

How does them having a degree change anything?

No, it doesn't.

Faith is belief without evidence and in spite all evidence.

That is never justified.

Faith in science? Do not put faith in science, especially since science is methodic doubt which could be considered the polar opposite of faith.

Believe in science due to the sound logic behind it.

Please show evidence of such a practice being created by a part of the scientific community, if you believe it happened so strongly then you should be bale to provide proof. At the moment I am inclined that it never occurred as part of science.

Depends on your frame of reference for that. From the reference of human eyesight they are. from the reference of the molecular level they are not.

Uh, no I do not and I do not think you should. I would recommend you look into the research yourself as I did.

Whims of the majority is religion and superstition, not science.

 

[Native]

@Subhankar Zac

Thanks for posting this topic. I´ll try to join in when/if I get the time. I´ve subscribed to the "Watch Thread".

 

[gnostic]

Science demands evidence and is only based on solid evidences (not theories).

What I had highlighted in red...you are completely wrong.

Why do you think science exist?

Science exist because people attempt to understand the mechanisms of nature, as well as man-made application of science, like technology (eg computers, vehicles, planes, bridges, etc).

And for us to communicate this understanding, we required scientists to provide explanation of WHAT it is and HOW it work, and that's through well-tested theories or theories with evidences.

Scientific theory are supposed to explain observable facts.

There are some fields of science that are not testable, but are provable through mathematical equations and mathematical abstractions; these fields have the word "theoretical" prefixed to it, such as theoretical physics (eg Superstring theory, M-theory, Supersymmetry, etc) and theoretical astrophysics (eg Multiverse model). These fields relied on PROOF, which mathematical solutions (like mathematical equations and models), not on evidences.

I would consider all these "theoretical" theories to be still hypothetical, as in, they could possibly be true, but are currently untestable. And until they (theoretical physics) have testable or verifiable evidences, I personally don't considered them to be true.

That's because of my background in civil engineering and computer science, which relied heavily on applied science. Therefore, my science deals more in the area of experimental science, which relies on something measurable, something testable. Natural science and applied science required verification and evidences, but theoretical science required provable maths.

So most theories are based on evidences, while others are based on maths (or proofs).

I go by this saying (I don't know where this saying come from):

"Trust, but verify"​

I don't know if this saying relates to science or not, but for me it is a philosophical position that I lived by. Meaning that the only theories that I can trust, are the ones that I can verify through testings and evidences.

Religion, on the other hand hand, is based on blind faith and superstitious belief, in nonsensical and nonexistent gods and spirits. Superstitions are based on fear and ignorance.

Science (other than theoretical physics) deals with probability and possibilities, religions deal with improbability and impossibilities.

You are wrong, Subhankar Zac. Without theories, you have no understanding of what science is all about.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

And for us to communicate this understanding, we required scientists to provide explanation of WHAT it is and HOW it work, and that's through well-tested theories or theories with evidences.

Scientific theory are supposed to explain observable facts.

There are some fields of science that are not testable, but are provable through mathematical equations and mathematical abstractions; these fields have the word "theoretical" prefixed to it, such as theoretical physics (eg Superstring theory, M-theory, Supersymmetry, etc) and theoretical astrophysics (eg Multiverse model). These fields relied on PROOF, which mathematical solutions (like mathematical equations and models), not on evidences.

I would consider all these "theoretical" theories to be still hypothetical, as in, they could possibly be true, but are currently untestable. And until they (theoretical physics) have testable or verifiable evidences, I personally don't considered them to be true.

That's because of my background in civil engineering and computer science, which relied heavily on applied science. Therefore, my science deals more in the area of experimental science, which relies on something measurable, something testable. Natural science and applied science required verification and evidences, but theoretical science required provable maths.

So most theories are based on evidences, while others are based on maths (or proofs).

I go by this saying (I don't know where this saying come from):

"Trust, but verify"​

I don't know if this saying relates to science or not, but for me it is a philosophical position that I lived by. Meaning that the only theories that I can trust, are the ones that I can verify through testings and evidences.

Religion, on the other hand hand, is based on blind faith and superstitious belief, in nonsensical and nonexistent gods and spirits. Superstitions are based on fear and ignorance.

Science (other than theoretical physics) deals with probability and possibilities, religions deal with improbability and impossibilities.

You are wrong, Subhankar Zac. Without theories, you have no understanding of what science is all about.

I like to keep statements brief and to the point and to avoid writing another Mahabharata, here are my points:

1. The "evidences" claimed by a secondary source will be accepted to us (scientists) and the words claimed by a secondary source will be acceptable to us (priest).
But we should all believe in the first one, because science says that believe in the statements of the person that you wish to while berating others if they do not follow your path as well.

2. Mathematical evidences do not always give us the right explanation.
We still haven't discovered exotic or negative matter or a Whitehole.
The static universe concept has also failed.
Electrocuting gay men to make them straight also failed.
If scientists existed in each era, could they not use science to explain homosexuality as a natural phenomenon?

3. Observe and verify... Without evidences, it's simply not a fact.

4. Belief in the words of a scientist.
Belief in the words of a Vedic priest.
(Choose one, just not the one that you reject)

5. Probabilities and possibilities- science
Improbability and impossiblities- religion
(Do not choose the one I Do not approve of)

So in conclusion:
Religion is ****ty but believing in the words of a scientist without using experiments (even with mathematical formulas) by onself is science itself.
Possibilities and probabilities is science.
And though science one believed homosexuality to be mental disorder, science (with probability) should be accepted.

I think I'll have my morning tea now.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science demands evidence and is only based on solid evidences (not theories).
The 5 physical senses connected with the mind are our wires of perception.
Hence in most cases, our sensory organs makes up our version of truth.
Though these senses are always susceptible to illusion, still they are the closest to receiving factual evidences.

We come across a million things when we take a drive for 10 mins from home to college and we ASSUME all of them to be real. The hills, the water tanks, the cars, the cows on the roads, etc. All of them are real to our eyes.
We do not need to go and feel their presence, we know 'for a fact' that they are real.
Note: only the senses of eyes are at play here.

At the same time, the eyes also sees a mirror as a smooth surface and solid objects as solid, while in this case we believe that this is actually not the case.
Nothing is exactly "smooth" and nothing is solid.
Yet none of us have actually seen the atoms and the infinitely fast moving electrons with the use of powerful microscopes. But we believe it, because someone with qualified education says so.

Moving on, many with prestigious degrees in India, China, Iran and even the US have views that according to us are more suited to the 12th century along with religious fanaticism, homophobia and anti atheistic rants.

But in this case, the degrees do not give them the same respect as others who accept LGBT, atheists and other minorities.

So, how does it work?
On one hand, blind faith is wrong, but it's okay if the person has years of experience in the field of science.
Years of experience is a plus point in scientific researches but not if that person speaks something that isn't accepted in the norms of majority.
And we put our faith in the same science that once said that gay men could be "cured" by electrocution.

Actually science or whims of majority?

It's a good point, and I think it is very important to recognize the distinction between science the method, and science the academic/political institution- they are often diametrically opposed to each other

 

[Subhankar Zac]

It's a good point, and I think it is very important to recognize the distinction between science the method, and science the academic/political institution- they are often diametrically opposed to each other

Which is impossible for much of the people to believe in because science is always non biased for most, even if they are funded by corporates and governments (that we see in pure philanthropic methods)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which is impossible for much of the people to believe in because science is always non biased for most, even if they are funded by corporates and governments (that we see in pure philanthropic methods)

Like many subjects here it gets into semantics, but in practical reality, it seems the word 'science' is most often used in lieu of the method- where the method is least applicable- political 'science' economic 'science' climate 'science', and so on.

People actually using the practical method to practical, demonstrable ends,- direct observation, measurement, repeated experiments etc.. engineers, builders, farmers, product developers.. have little need to throw the word around to make their opinions sound more weighty

They are held to account by the method, results themselves, not just academic peer pressure review

 

[gnostic]

3. Observe and verify... Without evidences, it's simply not a fact.

What do you think I mean by "verify", Zac?

I mean verify as in evidences and in tests.

I agreed that there is no fact if there are no evidences. And the only way to verify is to have evidences.

So, I have been saying that all along.

One of the means of observation is evidence. Other means include experiments and tests, and measurements

And as I have said before, Zac Evidences are different from proof; proof is mathematical equations or mathematical models.

 

[Skwim]

Science demands evidence and is only based on solid evidences (not theories).

Right out of the gate and you go kerplop.

Thanks for the warning not to bother with what follows.


.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Right out of the gate and you go kerplop.

Thanks for the warning not to bother with what follows.


.

You're welcome.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

What do you think I mean by "verify", Zac?

I mean verify as in evidences and in tests.

I agreed that there is no fact if there are no evidences. And the only way to verify is to have evidences.

So, I have been saying that all along.

One of the means of observation is evidence. Other means include experiments and tests, and measurements

And as I have said before, Zac Evidences are different from proof; proof is mathematical equations or mathematical models.

And this is exactly why I tend not to reply to every reply as it only adds more loops and diverts the conversation.
My point is you verifying every scientific theory with mathematical methods BY YOYRSELF...
Which now is about Difference between proof and evidences.
My point is clear from the beginning, but m just going to repeat it again just so that the next reply isn't diverted to some other issue.

- Have you checked the validity of all the theories and hypothesis with mathematical or personal encounter BY YOURSELF?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Science demands evidence and is only based on solid evidences (not theories).
The 5 physical senses connected with the mind are our wires of perception.
Hence in most cases, our sensory organs makes up our version of truth.
Though these senses are always susceptible to illusion, still they are the closest to receiving factual evidences.

We come across a million things when we take a drive for 10 mins from home to college and we ASSUME all of them to be real. The hills, the water tanks, the cars, the cows on the roads, etc. All of them are real to our eyes.
We do not need to go and feel their presence, we know 'for a fact' that they are real.
Note: only the senses of eyes are at play here.

At the same time, the eyes also sees a mirror as a smooth surface and solid objects as solid, while in this case we believe that this is actually not the case.
Nothing is exactly "smooth" and nothing is solid.
Yet none of us have actually seen the atoms and the infinitely fast moving electrons with the use of powerful microscopes. But we believe it, because someone with qualified education says so.

Moving on, many with prestigious degrees in India, China, Iran and even the US have views that according to us are more suited to the 12th century along with religious fanaticism, homophobia and anti atheistic rants.

But in this case, the degrees do not give them the same respect as others who accept LGBT, atheists and other minorities.

So, how does it work?
On one hand, blind faith is wrong, but it's okay if the person has years of experience in the field of science.
Years of experience is a plus point in scientific researches but not if that person speaks something that isn't accepted in the norms of majority.
And we put our faith in the same science that once said that gay men could be "cured" by electrocution.

Actually science or whims of majority?

"Homophobia", "LGBT", "gay men cured". I smell an agenda in these politically correct straw man fallacies.

But answer me this: Put a man in a sealed room, remove all the air, or shoot him into outer space, and he will die within minutes. Is his fate tied to his or other's perceptions? Can scientists not examine his body and determine the cause of death from the evidence? I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say the same thing is true about decapitation, only change the "minutes" to "microseconds".

Dogmatic--inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

Some things are incontrovertibly true.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Dogmatic--inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

Some things are incontrovertibly true.

But that does not prevent some from believing what is true to be not true if they do not understand the explanation of, or have not experienced the 'thing that is true'... Such people may believe the explanation to be dogma...