Quote:
Originally Posted by PockyMePink
Science can't prove or understand why huskies can change their metabolism speed, but it happens anyway. Science and logic can't prove many things we already know exists, so why go on to say that just because science and logic can't prove a higher power exists, it must not be there? Is it logical to follow something that isn't proved? Is it logical to not follow something when it hasn't been disproved?
Science can manipulate you in the same way as religion can. With science, you're TOLD something you've been TOLD about exists becuase an experiment you were TOLD about gave the results that they TOLD you, etc etc. What if what they TOLD you was a lie? With enough details, you can make any "scientific study" seem legit. Unless you do it for yourself, all you can do with science is trust what articles, TV, and people say. And we all know that second hand sources can prove to be unreliable. As long as someone labels it as science, it must be true, right? Because what something else says is science can never lie to you, right?
|
I never claimed science has all the answers to everything. I actually said it's an ongoing process of discovery. I also didn't claim that there is any proof of the non existence of higher powers, ghosts, santa claus, the easter bunny, whatever...
The point I've been making is to completely believe in something that does not have any proof whatsoever is simply ridiculous. Frankly it reeks of some sort of desperation to suspend rational thinking and just have faith in something which in all likelyhood will never be proved conclusively one way or the other. For a good read on the why things like the paranormal and supernatural can never really be disproved look up Carl Sagan: "A Fire-Breathing Dragon Lives in my Garage".
Can science also be manipulated? Of course it can. Especially in this day and age of the internet it can be extremely hard to sort out the credible and the bogus science circulating out there. People can post anything on the internet circumventing the normal rigorous process of review credible scientific papers have to go through to get published. And if we have a public out there who is on the whole mostly scientifically illiterate then how can they possibly discern the good from the bad? It's definitely an issue. The only hope in my opinion lies in better education and communication of science. Or you can continue living in a fairytale world believing in gods, ghosts and such...Is it not better to strive to fully understand the world around us rather than just putting it down to something supernatural when an explanation is not immediately apparent?