the problem i have with this, and some of how science is practised, is the idea that it's alright to reject the possibility of something purely because of a lack of evidence either way. to use database terms, equating NULL with FALSE, rather than just operating from a purely neutral "i don't know (yet)".
re practice, part of it is people having to stick to a particular POV their funding is tied to, or that their hypothesis is attacked rather than the methodology or results, but neither of those things are strictly scientific.
this is also why i don't like militant atheists. their position is just as faith-based as other *theists.
no subject
no subject
Should be narrated by Charlie Brooker, mind.
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
re practice, part of it is people having to stick to a particular POV their funding is tied to, or that their hypothesis is attacked rather than the methodology or results, but neither of those things are strictly scientific.
this is also why i don't like militant atheists. their position is just as faith-based as other *theists.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)