/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2227520
>Assuming public officials are a single entity, all looking out for each other, therefore official doctrines will never incriminate an authority figure
>Assuming that what is accepted is the complete creation of an official entity, rather than a response to what will get votes
>Assuming that doctrines are designed to incriminate
>Assuming that doctrines designed for a specific purpose automatically cannot be true
>Assuming that the scientific community is under the jurisdiction of any one government
>Assuming that science is a set of doctrines, rather than a means of inquiry, whose falsifiability and experimental nature quickly weeds out people with an agenda

From that, I'd say idiot. 0/10
But then...
Picture of a Reptilian hominid.

Didn't notice that before I started raging. I got trolled, I guess. 8/10. Congratulations, now get a hobby :)

5) Humans seem hardwired for interpreting implication in speech, if a context is shared between speaker and hearer. A language that starts as purely explicit, once people become fluent in it, will naturally be used in non-explicit ways, and eventually become more non-literal. This is especially true when jargon is developed for a specific purpose, such as science, when everyone shares basically the same context from the outset.

Those are points I draw from what is pretty well established in language research. Here's my personal view-
It seems to me that, when dealing with complex ideas, everyone has a slightly different semantic value for any given word. How would you ever get anyone to agree on definitions in a literal, explicit language? Especially if you're working in a context where there is so much disagreement and change, such as science.

As long as we're working with human brains, the closest that you'll ever get is math, methinks. And I think that is far from perfect, based on the criteria you listed.

>>1963053
No, I'm going to approach someone claiming to be god, and assume that he is trying to make me take his claim seriously. So, I would ask him for what I require to take his claim seriously.

This refusal to question things because we fear holy reprisal is the whole reason we had the dark ages, instead of being hundred of years more advanced in knowledge and technology. I'd rather take the bolt than pussy out.