fatslob-:O said:
That's not ideal since academics and scholars frequently lose grounding to the real world ...
I want to believe but it's human nature to be stubborn and especially when science conflicts with their moral views ...
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 ... |
Other than religion? How do you know this? Of course it was religion. Even giving the benefit of the doubt would put you in the aim of inquisitions.
Also, if you lick their boots, you will gain bigger standing with the religious power. Religion was the law back then. You can't compare those times to today's times where people have the freedom to defend their opinion without their life beeing at risk. For the most part anyways.
You are mixing this with politics again. They are not the same. Bernie is not a scientist. I'm pretty sure he knows more about science than Trump, for example. Probably, more than every right wing leader.
Religion doesnt claim to be more honest because it's demonstrable that they aren't. Theres recorded history events of it. Religion just focuses on selling you a dream and trying to make you forget about details.
The expert generalisation... i dunno what to tell you. I think you are just looking at the wrong places and assuming what is true science from what is hypothesis. I saw so called scientists presenting their "proof" of creationism, wich involved ignoring all that science knows is true and questioning every dating method, even though the evidence corroberates itself. Theres too much proof to the contrary to just grab some circusntancial data and claim something outrageous. This is why i said before that you need more than just circunstancial evidence.
Eugenics, if you mean in humans, it's morally reprehensable. What you are sugesting is human experimentation with steralisation. Who do you think has the moral authority or right to do that to someone else?