3 ms·

Scientists may, but so what? They are wrong. The Scientific Method, that concept is what matters. You can read about it in Wikipedia. >Anybody who disagrees wi

Scientists may, but so what? They are wrong. The Scientific Method, that concept is what matters. You can read about it in Wikipedia. >Anybody who disagrees with them are idiots and conspiracy theorists. It just depends, too. If someone says that there are fairies or pixies that exist, or that Pegasus exists, then that is pretty much an idiot, for all intents and purposes. If someone says 2+2 does not equal 4, then whatever. Indiana had a bill in 1897 called the Indiana Pi Bill for bill #246. They tried to establish math by fiat, and said that a circle can be turned into a square. So yeah, the Indiana legislators were pretty bad. >The flat earth theory is a common one where you will get that reaction. So...I don't get what you are saying? Are you saying that the earth is flat??? Because that would be extremely bizarre to say that. >Your reaction to religion is just a dumb take It's a free country, you have the right to think whatever you wish. >Pretty much every religion has a concept of development of doctrine. Sure. The whole Santa Claus thing has a doctrine, too. The story of Santa Claus and the raindeer and how it came to be.

_-david-_ 4y ago
> Scientists may, but so what? They are wrong. The Scientific Method, that concept is what matters. You can read about it in Wikipedia. I brought it up because you said: >Nothing is presented as unquestionable truth in science. It is the predominent model. Just because some people might seem present it as TRUTH, doesn't mean that any scientist actually thinks that it is. Many scientists do think their current views are the truth, not a compelling theory. You are wrong to suggest that scientists don't do this. >It just depends, too. If someone says that there are fairies or pixies that exist, or that Pegasus exists, then that is pretty much an idiot, for all intents and purposes You can't have it both ways. If a scientist says there are no fairies then according to you it is not the truth, but a model or theory. No scientists could possibly come to the conclusion that it is anything other than just a theory. If I believe in a theory that hasn't been disproven like fairies then calling me an idiot would be wrong. According to you, I am making no more of a truthful statement than a scientist who says there are no fairies. >So...I don't get what you are saying? Are you saying that the earth is flat??? Because that would be extremely bizarre to say that. Of course I am not saying that. I am saying there are certain things in science we can say are true. We don't need to have competing theories. The Earth not being flat is one of them. If a scientist says the Earth is not flat and anybody who disagrees is an idiot and wrong, that is perfectly fine.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  > If a scientist says there are no fairies then according to you it is not the truth, but a model or theory Technically, that's true - our model of universe requires no fairies to exist so we have to assume they don't (otherwise where do we stop - everything imaginable has just as much likelihood of also existing). If an actual fairy is discovered tomorrow and passes all reasonable scientific standards of evidence, the model was wrong and what we reasonably held to be "true" turns out not to be. Only a bad scientist would go on maintaining their previous "truth" when the evidence contradicts it (and the gold standard would be that a new model of the universe that includes fairies is able to make better predictions than the previous one).
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    This is why I didn't use a fairy example originally. I used flat earth since we can figure out the truth. The universe is huge so there obviously could be a fairy somewhere. According to the person I was responding to we can't even know if the statement the earth is flat is truthful.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Depends on your standards for "truth". We can never be 100% sure that the Earth isn't in fact flat after all (and everything we measure/perceive is explained by mass delusion, for example), but we can certain enough that for all practical purposes there's no reason not to assume it's not true.
      - As_You_Wish 4y ago
        Exactly. Thank you. That is it, right on the nose.
    - As_You_Wish 4y ago
      >According to the person I was responding to we can't even know if the statement the earth is flat is truthful. Yes, that is 100% correct. We cannot know for 100% sure. However, we can assign degrees of certainty, which is the main thing that you are leaving out. We can be 99.9999999999999999999999999999% certain that the world is flat. And we can know that there is a .0000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that the moon is made of green cheese (of course the top layer is rocky because of all the meteor strikes over the eons of time). At some point, one can make a judgement call and say that 100% for sure that the earth is round and not flat, but that is only a figure of speech, strictly speaking, when looking at the world from a scientific viewpoint. Only religion says that stuff is 100% true for all time. Definitively. Only religion.

_-david-_ 4y ago

> Scientists may, but so what? They are wrong. The Scientific Method, that concept is what matters. You can read about it in Wikipedia. I brought it up because you said: >Nothing is presented as unquestionable truth in science. It is the predominent model. Just because some people might seem present it as TRUTH, doesn't mean that any scientist actually thinks that it is. Many scientists do think their current views are the truth, not a compelling theory. You are wrong to suggest that scientists don't do this. >It just depends, too. If someone says that there are fairies or pixies that exist, or that Pegasus exists, then that is pretty much an idiot, for all intents and purposes You can't have it both ways. If a scientist says there are no fairies then according to you it is not the truth, but a model or theory. No scientists could possibly come to the conclusion that it is anything other than just a theory. If I believe in a theory that hasn't been disproven like fairies then calling me an idiot would be wrong. According to you, I am making no more of a truthful statement than a scientist who says there are no fairies. >So...I don't get what you are saying? Are you saying that the earth is flat??? Because that would be extremely bizarre to say that. Of course I am not saying that. I am saying there are certain things in science we can say are true. We don't need to have competing theories. The Earth not being flat is one of them. If a scientist says the Earth is not flat and anybody who disagrees is an idiot and wrong, that is perfectly fine.

wizofaus 4y ago
> If a scientist says there are no fairies then according to you it is not the truth, but a model or theory Technically, that's true - our model of universe requires no fairies to exist so we have to assume they don't (otherwise where do we stop - everything imaginable has just as much likelihood of also existing). If an actual fairy is discovered tomorrow and passes all reasonable scientific standards of evidence, the model was wrong and what we reasonably held to be "true" turns out not to be. Only a bad scientist would go on maintaining their previous "truth" when the evidence contradicts it (and the gold standard would be that a new model of the universe that includes fairies is able to make better predictions than the previous one).
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  This is why I didn't use a fairy example originally. I used flat earth since we can figure out the truth. The universe is huge so there obviously could be a fairy somewhere. According to the person I was responding to we can't even know if the statement the earth is flat is truthful.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Depends on your standards for "truth". We can never be 100% sure that the Earth isn't in fact flat after all (and everything we measure/perceive is explained by mass delusion, for example), but we can certain enough that for all practical purposes there's no reason not to assume it's not true.
    - As_You_Wish 4y ago
      Exactly. Thank you. That is it, right on the nose.
  - As_You_Wish 4y ago
    >According to the person I was responding to we can't even know if the statement the earth is flat is truthful. Yes, that is 100% correct. We cannot know for 100% sure. However, we can assign degrees of certainty, which is the main thing that you are leaving out. We can be 99.9999999999999999999999999999% certain that the world is flat. And we can know that there is a .0000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that the moon is made of green cheese (of course the top layer is rocky because of all the meteor strikes over the eons of time). At some point, one can make a judgement call and say that 100% for sure that the earth is round and not flat, but that is only a figure of speech, strictly speaking, when looking at the world from a scientific viewpoint. Only religion says that stuff is 100% true for all time. Definitively. Only religion.