{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/27/2017 6:01:38 PM
37
You cannot "believe" in Science.
I hear this a lot nowadays and even on Bungo.net. Science is not a belief system. Science is the exact opposite of a belief. It is not a "who" or a "what," it is a "how." It is a process used to develop a standpoint, based on the evidence that makes sense. It is the exact opposite of faith, which is defined as a belief that is developed regardless if there's facts or not to support the claim.
Science is being manipulated and manifested into a "what" in order to push political agendas, which is very wrong and insulting to scientists. It is being turned into a belief. People need to stop looking at it as if it's a belief.
The global warming issue is where this comes up a lot. "I believe in man-made global warming." You cannot "believe" this. There is science to support this. However there is also science that debunks this claim. To believe in one side without looking at the other is wrong. That is not scientific, and you cannot say you believe in science without even looking at both sides anyway. When you do this you establish a belief. And just because more people might support a certain standpoint, does not make it the correct one. The correct standpoint is the one with the better science and evidence.
Take a look at the flat earth model. A few hundred years ago, the flat earth model was the most common idea. But that did not make it true (inb4 KP). Science will always trump beliefs. Start using your own heads, look at all the facts and evidence to both sides, then establish your own standpoint based on which side has stronger evidence, instead of just choosing the side that is more popular.
Which brings me back to the global warming issue. The greenhouse gas argument does share some truths but leaves out a lot of key details, and leaves them out on purpose. They do not show the many fallacies to the model, or how there was even ten times as much CO2 in the atmosphere before glaciation compared to today, but this often gets overlooked as the evidence that originally gets presented is enough to establish a "belief" in people. This is wrong and people should not be thinking this way. I encourage you to read the 18 page PDF titled "Observations on 'Backradiation' During Night and Day" by Prof. Nasif Nahle, then re-evaluate your standpoint on the matter.
English
#Offtopic
-
6 RespuestasEditado por ElementNinja: 5/1/2017 4:03:30 AMLol lots of people here, misusing and misunderstanding what science actually is. Science is a mere facet of philosophy that is founded upon the belief and faith that man has the capacity to correctly understand and comprehend the natural world. That is then also founded upon the belief and faith that humanity's origins grant man that capacity. All of which is coupled with the fact that science is limited to the physical and is limited to man's understanding of the physical. For example: Most of you, whether you want to admit it or not, have the mindset of "hurrrr durrrr the moon revolves around the earth because science hurrrr durrrr". False. The moon has revolved around the earth before humanity existed due to a phenomena that specific humans have labeled as gravity. Science is a study, a tool, a method, and a practice of the physical world. Nothing more. It is limited to observation, experimentation, human inductive and deductive reasoning, and the formation and testing of hypotheses and theories. It's mere interpretation of the evidence. The natural physical world and universe, and beyond, moves and works and lives independent of man's comprehension, observation, and understanding. To not accept this is symptomatic of being a victim of your own hubris. To the OP: You seem to have understood this and have crafted a well-crafted post explaining this. Edit: I'd like to add the following. Proof is for math. In science, we deal in evidence and degrees of certainty, never absolute proofs or absolute facts.
