/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9735807
If someone claimed Relativity was wrong and there WAS an Aether Wind, you'd ask to see his experimental results, wouldn't you?
If he didn't have any, you'd dismiss him as a crank. Right?
Tons of evidence in favor of X. Zero against X.
Why should you cut Ham any more slack?

If you want to believe in a Creator and it makes you feel comfortable, that's your business. If you start seeing signs of intervention (suspensions of physical laws AKA miracles) you're obligated to investigate further. Newtonian gravitation didn't "quite" work in extreme circumstances. If further study shows your theory isn't supported, you are honor-bound to abandon it no matter your personal preferences.

I came across a quote from Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey.
"If my words ever contradict Science, trust Science."
Smarter than a lot of modern American politicians.

>>9421030
True. We can't prove the laws won't change.
But there's no evidence they have. And, even if they did, there are presumably meta-laws.
"Speed limit 40 MPH" is a law.
"Except 20 MPH during school hours" says laws can change, but dictates when and how.
The only way to escape this infinite-regress is to assume some Entity Not Governed by Laws who can decide, say, that Aristotelian physics (or Roadrunner physics) will be in force beginning Tuesday.
And, if you're going to accept that, Science and Rationality are meaningless.

Some people (I suspect >>9421039) believe it IS meaningless.

>>9400703
And they'll blame Hillary, Obama, homosexuals, and anyone else who doesn't share their limited worldview.

>>9361635
Because those beliefs have been hammered in since childhood. That's why most people grow up in their parents' religion.

Even supposedly rational people have trouble. If you'd spent 30 years working on, say, string theory, and an alternative seemed to fit the data better, you'd resist rather than admit you wasted 30 years. Thomas Kuhn's notion of "paradigm shift" has led to jokes that scientific theories only change when the old scientists die off.

And then there are the totally stupid assholes!

>>9360331
Precisely!
The majority of the population believes in climate change and recognizes something has to be done.
Even the big oil companies admit it (though usually only in ads boasting about how they're leading the way to a cleaner future.)
But a lot of the decision-makers are assholes!

I've seen statistics showing the opposite. The "harder" the field, the less likely people are to just accept the religion they were raised in simply because their parents assure them it's true. So, please, citation needed.

In a sense, it doesn't matter. Reality (including the existence or non-existence of deities) isn't subject to democratic vote.
In fact, the _REAL_ trouble begins when personal beliefs trump objective facts when setting public policy

>>9349330
No reason at all.
I'm sure you'd make a successful American politician.

>>9330457
"Ignorant" doesn't mean "stupid".
Science builds fact on fact and it takes time.

It might have gone faster if there hadn't been deliberate efforts to retard progress. You encourage people to think and they might get weird ideas about not going to church or doubting the divine right of kings.
The "keep 'em stupid" crowd hasn't given up. If anything, they've redoubled there efforts.

Stop electing idiots who don't believe in science.