This is why I don't like debating religion

[GameOver22]

Nem said:

Cobretti2 said:
my personal belief is that religion and science are both as bad as eath other.

I can find 10 studies that say chocolate is good for you and at the same time 10 studies that says it is not good for you. Which do I believe?

Basically both rely on faith from followers that the information provided by someone else is accurate.

They might all be right. It all depends on their definition of what is "good for you".

I can tell you smoking is bad for you cause it causes cancer or that its good for you cause it helps you relax. None of those are false, it just depends on what you consider "good for you". The science, the numbers themselves dont lie.

Off-topic, but I was reading an article the other day about there being a correlation between chocolate concumption and Nobel prize winners.....I was just wondering....how did this get published?

Chocolate

As for measurements, it really depends on the validity of your measures....whether you're actually measuring what you think you're measuring. This is a big problem for the social sciences, where the connection between concepts and measured objects isn't really clear....for instance, measuring voter turnout with survey results (people consistently overreport turnout). If you really look at the literature, there are multiple ways to measure the same thing, and scholars argue over which one is right. Utilizing different measures can then lead to different conclusions....meaning the results can lead to incorrect conclusions.

Hard sciences don't face the same difficulty, at least not to the same extent.