Originally posted by jaden101
Give me a specific example of where "science" has theorised something and then not changed the consensus of opinion in light of contradictory evidence.
I said science also uses belief (assumption without evidence) as a valid point in theorizng about the world. Sorry, if my response was not clear.
From the top of my head, an idea that the speed of light is constant is a belief, not a fact. And the whole theory of relativity hinges on that. Thus a large chunk of modern physics can very well be wrong.
Originally posted by Surtur
I never said it would create a utopian society. I said it would boost the economy and get a lot of people out of jail who do not need to be in jail.It's not small minded. Look up other countries that have legalized drugs.
We already have highly addictive shit that is legal. Why do some dipshits get to decide what stuff we can get hooked on and what we can't get hooked on? How many people are killed by drunk drivers each year? Is alcohol illegal? No?
That's your argument? Thats because alcohol is legal so should drugs? Which drugs should be legal? Coke? Heroine? Weed and crack? That's a great idea now that I think about it. Lets legalize drug use. But what age should it start? 18? 21? Id love to see the benefits of legalized drug use to an already hostile society. I asked before have you ever been addicted to anything. Opiates? Pills? Liquor...i dont think you understand the ramifications of a society of drug users.
Let me answer your questions though. You said "why do some dipshits get to decide what stuff we get hooked on". I dunno i assume because they are elected officials. I mean we did elect these folks that enact these laws. You mentioned how many people get killed by drunk drivers....ive no clue im sure y could google it. Not sure where u were going with that. Would u rather them be killed by coke addicts instead
Originally posted by Stigma
Nice try, but that's not what I was on to 👆I said science also uses belief (assumption without evidence) as a valid point in theorizng about the world. Sorry, if my response was not clear.
From the top of my head, an idea that the speed of light is constant is a belief, not a fact. And the whole theory of relativity hinges on that. Thus a large chunk of modern physics can very well be wrong.
It could. The point is that scientific consensus changes with evidence. Religious consensus doesn't.(although the Catholic Church is beginning to shift on certain issues)
Also, theoretical physics isn't just plucking theories out of the air. Mathematical application is the basis for currently non observable physics. Much of what has been theorised for decades is now being proven as technology advances...gravitational waves, higgs boson
Then there's the countless theories that were abandoned after being proven wrong. A scientific equivalent to the way religion denies facts in the face of overwhelming evidence would be scientists still claiming that luminiferous aether is a thing.
Originally posted by jaden101
It could. The point is that scientific consensus changes with evidence. Religious consensus doesn't.(although the Catholic Church is beginning to shift on certain issues)Also, theoretical physics isn't just plucking theories out of the air. Mathematical application is the basis for currently non observable physics. Much of what has been theorised for decades is now being proven as technology advances...gravitational waves, higgs boson
Then there's the countless theories that were abandoned after being proven wrong. A scientific equivalent to the way religion denies facts in the face of overwhelming evidence would be scientists still claiming that luminiferous aether is a thing.
All religions start with dogma and then are theorized upon.
All science starts with theory, and that sometimes developes into "dogma."
Religion can start with an assumption (religious dogma) and then be proved through philosophical and logical reasoning.
Science can start with premises for the use of the theory (some points can be assumed without evidence) and then move on to the conclusion.
The issue is religion often justifies its dogmas via philosophical and logical extrapolations (e.g. Christianity), while science seemingly constantly shifts its positions due to empirical tests in the natural world (like you correctly pointed out). In that way, both progress, but by using different modes of analysis.
Morover, scientific advances further support the observations made through philosophy (Big Bang Theory, for example.)
On the other hand, religion and science seldom intersect. Science is not equipped to deal with things that religion does, and vice versa.