Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorW
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CraigS
The 'strawman arguments', which attempt to assert the existence of what is unobjective and independently unverifiable in the first place, and is therefore only supportable by faith-based beliefs or internally inconsistent conjecture … is simply ludicrous within astronomical and scientific communities.
Cheers & Rgds
|
Is not this the dogma for one of the greatest beliefs humans have that can not be mentioend becasue of TOS rules and is still supported by a large number of people who exist within the scietific community 
The mere lack of proof does not in itself negate probability to an open mind.  |
Trevor;
There is no 'proof' involved in the scientific process .. it is simply not needed.
Because 'belief', and hence 'truth', varies amongst human beings, when practised in accordance with the principals and guidelines of the process, these varying biases are more or less 'smoothed out' (ever tried to publish 'truth' thru a peer-review process) ?
We all know this is not perfect, and no-one has ever said it is .. but why harp on about the infinitesmal instances of sloppy science .. and can you suggest another process which minimises the 'belief' humans bring into such a process ?
This process also does not exclude people with beliefs partaking in the quest .. and this is clearly a benefit !
What I'm seeing here, (not yourself), is an active demonstration of how to be cynical.
Other than the seemingly dying need to win an 'internet argument', and bolster individual egos, (which is a complete waste of time, in my view) can anyone explain the purpose and benefits of cynicism for me ?
Cheers