That's exactly the religious method I'm talking about.
If someone says things that are popular, they get a bunch of money and power. Like Falwell, the Pope, and Iranian mullahs. They don't have to prove anything.
In science, things don't work that way. Anybody who produces evidence that some well established theory is wrong becomes the new expert. But they have to prove it to the scientific community, they can't just make a popular claim.
Religionists can just make a claim, without producing any evidence. That's why there are so many different religions.
Tom
I'm sure I have already acknowledged that the religious institution is corrupt......and that I have nothing to do with it.
And also that the scientific institution is as well for the same reasons.
In much the same way that a person like myself whos thinking cannot be controlled..... is considered a "nut job" by my peers..
so is the scientist who has the ability and means to do independent research on his own , and if it does not agree with the
"mainstream" of thought at the time, they are said to be "rouge"......or even "mad" ( mad scientist ).
Why do you suppose that is ?
It isn't.
But I realize that you don't understand how science works. You can't tell the difference between objective beliefs and subjective beliefs.
So you confuse scientific knowledge for religious knowledge.
You aren't the first and you won't be the last.
Tom
I believe that you will die one day. Silly me, that's a "subjective belief".....or is it "objective" ?
Doesn't really matter, because NOBODY gets out of here alive. (or do they ?)
