Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:This is a MAJOR problem (Score 1) 124

Thank you, I enjoy slaying religious idols when they're counter-productive to my species' well being.

One of them being that High Priesthood Of Climate Science is beyond critique and that observing reality and concluding that they're wrong is Heresy to Faith of Science.

As in reality, process of observing things and concluding that hypotheses raised by other people are wrong has a name: science, practiced by scientists. Note the lack of capitalization. It's a descriptor, not a name of religion people like you worship: Science, led by High Priesthood of Scientists, the only people with divine right to observe and interpret reality.

Comment Re: This is a MAJOR problem (Score 1) 124

See, this is the problem with faithful. They find observation of reality to be an insufficient standard of proof.

This problem is universal in all religions, as religious circuitry in humans is specifically intended to be able to rally the tribe against overwhelming odds. I.e. "you cannot reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into".

Comment Re: This is a MAJOR problem (Score 1) 124

Indeed. The difference is that everything you assume (not believe) to be a fact needs to come with evidence and need do be falsifiable (i.e. evidence that proves it is wrong could be obtained if it is wrong). Obviously, you, personally, cannot verify everything. But you can verify some things and it is expected that you did, usually in school. The only assumption that you need to be able to make is that all the other facts were verified by somebody.

In contrast, with faith/belief, there is no verification. Nobody has ever successfully verified that God (which ever one) does exist. There are some plausibility arguments, but they are all weak and many are basically not even argument but just serve to confuse the question by adding complexity. None of these meet scientific standards. And that claim is not falsifiable either: You cannot disprove God exists. What ever proof you have, it would be limited, because in some dark corner of the universe, God could be hiding away, ignoring everybody. Hence "God exists" does not even need the requirements for a scientific claim, regardless of whether that statement is true or not. This is the reason why Atheists say things like "God does almost certainly not exists".

In short, you can "believe" scientific facts (or not), but in doing so you do not participate in Science and you are not using the scientific method. Any claim to Science being about belief is simply a direct lie though.

Comment Re:This is a MAJOR problem (Score 1) 124

Indeed. And the issue was detected by looking at the data, finding fault with it and that is perfectly fine. Now, if the MAGAs and other denier-idiot assholes were right, the correction would never have happened. But it did. And that means things work and deliver good results. The process is just a bit more complex and takes a bit longer than their tiny brains can handle.

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Working...