Originally posted by deepankarm
You are just as fanatic as the religious ones. So you want to say, because science is the opposite of religion, it is the truth.
No, I'm saying because its backed by objective evidence that it's true. I'm not saying it is absolutely 100% undeniable truth, but it's our best
guess based on evidence, and it works.
You are ignorant. Science doesn't answer why. It creates why's.
Again you are being judgemental by saying that i am am egoistic in my point of view.
Am i being judged because i have different thoughts??
I don't recall judging you. I'm merely defending science here. But I'm ignorant because I understand WHY it works.
Why does the earth revolve around the sun? Why does the earth rotate on an axis? Why does the sun give off energy? Why do we see the northern
lights? Why do we have thunderstorms? All of these are easily answered by science along with hundreds and thousands of other questions.
Now you are talking nonsense.
I have repeated several times that a lie after being repeated n times doesn't become truth.
The lie seems to be truth because you haven't got any way to experience the truth.
What lie? What nonsense am I talking? You tell me about repeating things, but yet you repeat all of your points and insult me in the process,
without posting any evidence.
If i make a program, i will try it to be as reliable as possible.
But does that program can tell you how reliable a person i am??
What does that have to do with science or this conversation?
I can't stop laughing at the stupidity of your example.
Well sir, we think this anesthesia will knock you out for the surgery, but we're not sure. Just let us know if you wake up screaming in agony. Looks
like this hook will the right tool to fix that hernia. That's my guess."
Well I tried to make it somewhat humerus, but your claim that science is either a religion or unreliable has no base in reality. We know that
anesthesia will knock a patient out for x amount of hours based on their body mass and other factors. Science has determined this and if it wasn't
accurate, it would not work and wouldn't be able to be reliably used in medicine. Very simple concept.
What do you have against science? Why do you think the brain is not reliable to observe repeated tested results that never change? It sounds like
you are trying to make the argument that the universe is a computer program, and therefor everything we see is subjective. That may be possible, but
it doesn't mean science is wrong. In this dimension we live in, science is a reliable way to gain facts and knowledge. Do you deny this? I'm not
sure what exactly you are trying to argue about.
edit on 25-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)