| Safiir said: Again - you need years of learning and experience on a subject. Hence why it is dominated by academics or scholars. I mean an average person can't really understand the data collected on global warming for example (since it's currently such a hot topic). It should be available for him, definitely. But he/she simply lacks the knowledge to interpret it. |
That's not ideal since academics and scholars frequently lose grounding to the real world ...
| Safiir said: Well, yeah but in order to properly analyse and understand the empirical evidence you do need several qualified (as in know enough about the subject) people who generally agree on the results. You can't have a single person be the ultimate authority on the matter because we're still just human. There's plenty of subjectivity on our part. This is why it's important to have a scientific consensus. I don't believe it makes it like a tiranny of the majority that suppresses different thoughts and ideas, although that's not to say it hasn't happened. Again - we are human. Eventually, though if it is proven even a drastically different theory will be accepted. |
I want to believe but it's human nature to be stubborn and especially when science conflicts with their moral views ...
| Nem said: Really? The reason why galileo and others were persecuted was religion. True consensus is possible when there is freedom to exercise it. Of course if theres a group of fanatics at your doorstep ready to kill you, you will say whatever doesn't get you killed. Science is not an echo chamber. Every theory can be questioned aslong as theres evidence of the claim. I assure that if you come up with proof, not circunstancial proof, not just bits when theres tons for a rival hypothesis, it will be taken into account. That is how science works. But, i'm still confused about your claims. You think religion is more honest than science? You think that organizations that killed millions and persecuted millions more is the epitome of honesty? You think the bible was never pandered with for 2 thousand years? These conspiracy theories are mind boggling. The thing about science is that it's not falsefiable. It's demonstrable. |
Even many of the scholars who were progressive in Galileo's time did not agree with his conclusions for reasons other than religion ...
Your're right that science is not an echochamber but the community themselves are in an echochamber where they are getting infected with the popular opinions of political figures with idiots like Bernie Sanders who are just as dangerously ignorant about science as those who we persecute with extreme religious beliefs ...
I don't claim that religion is more honest than science. It's that religion doesn't advertise to be more academically honest and if science is going to do the opposite then we need to hold it to a much higher standard to those practicing it when experts are willing to defile it with their political agendas ...
Too many times have I've seen experts produce dishonesty after dishonesty when it comes to genetic research because they had a conflict of interest with liberal policies. I can't trust liberal funded research anymore when it comes to genetics since their the group whose most opposed to shutting down any results that agree with their equality narrative ...
It's so utterly sad to see eugenics not being pursued as often because anytime anyone goes into to it they become the black sheep of the science community and are automatically branded as racists when they bring in valid data that intensely clashes with the personal opinions of the rest of the community ...
