/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11066758
>normies
You need to go back

>>10952858
>believing in science

>>10884029
>But why does a primitive caveman get to be likened to a scientist and not the Pope?
Because in most contexts the caveman is probably willing to abandon old hypotheses that don't work well and try out new hypotheses. Ancient peoples used to make weapons out of copper before someone figured out how to make bronze, and bronze works better than copper, therefore everyone who found out about bronze started to use it instead of copper. If they were like the Pope they would cling to the dogma "weapons must be made out of copper" because that's the tradition, that's the dogma. Which is why the Pope burned Giordano Bruno at the stake and forced Galileo Galilei to abjure, because the Pope is unwilling to discard his old hypotheses about the nature of the world.

>He’s sincerely seeking truth just the same
The Pope is not seeking the truth. The Pope believes he already has the truth, and nothing can change his mind. A scientist is always open to the possibility that he is wrong about something.

>It seems that mostly when people accuse people of being “unscientific” what they really mean is that they are lying or acting in bad faith
Someone is "unscientific" if he upholds unwarranted claims. If I say "the Earth is flat" I'm being unscientific because there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Earth is not flat. If you claim that the NASA photos from space are a conspiracy, there are still ways to prove that the Earth is most likely not flat (the distance to the horizon, for example). Being "unscientific" comes down to making bold claims with no evidence to back them up.

>>10847384
Around Catholics never relax.