You describe belief, not fact. Fact is something tested and agreed upon by a majority of educated persons. I saw the bird fly into the window, it is my reality. Once I attempt to state is as a reality to you, I must supply proof (feathers on the floor, blood on the glass), otherwise it is an observation without evidence of validity.
no fact is not something agreed upon by the majority of educated people, it is something provable. weather educated people agree or not is irrelevant, if prove goes against it isn't fact.
educated opinion is Just opinion
Agreement by a majority is an opinion thats all.A majority overlooks the minority but does not automatically make their opinion correct. Calling someone educated and implying that they are therefore incapable of being wrong is, with respect, rather arrogant.
This. You both do not understand the process of science which is why you keep misrepresenting what science is. You do not understand how science is done and what it means (it isn't something you just switch on when you are in the lab). I don't mean this post to be insulting, but instead I would hope it could be a sort of call to action to really learn more about the procedure of science before shooting it down so quickly.
Some people think their opinion is fact. They think their education gives them the right to dictate what is and what isn't.
I am as educated as anybody here, I was headed for a masters degree in psychology, I lost my grants because I had bad grades in elective classes. I refused to take them again, the particular grants I had were strict on maintaining a 3.0 GPA. I had it in my core curriculum but I lost it because of theater classes. I don't respect theater. It was bovine excrement and I refused to pay for that nonsense. The so called "education system" said I couldn't have a degree unless I swallow that bovine excrement and say I like it. So I walked away. I make more money than I would have in the psychology field, I am happier if I had just not wasted those six years playing with school.
Peer review is opinion. Just like at one time the peer reviewed consensus on the shape of the world was that it was flat.
Just because you got a degree in science does not mean you understand it. I have a science degree too and I'm working on another one- I know a lot of my peers who got the degree but don't understand the procedures still.
And again, I don't care what you think, but I am saying if you hold a scientific view of the world you can't believe in God. It is too bad you think things like intuition or whatever are a higher form to answer such questions than science. But either way, it isn't crazy to want to look at such facts-based questions scientifically- that is what science is for and some of the greatest minds in human history (Einstein, Feynman, Dawkins, Bohr, Franklin, and on and on) have held a position similar to mine, so I have no problem holding it either (although of course my foremost reason for my beliefs is the scientific method, not bandwagoning with anyone).
Simply by stating the peer review process is opinion, you make it extremely clear you do not actually understand science.
I see no reason to continue.
God is real...because you say so.
Peer review is an integral part of science! This proves to me you don't understand the simplest concepts of science let alone why it is such a powerful way to looking at the world.
Peer review is the review of work by peers to establish impartiality. It is not integral to science, science can exist without peers.
sci·ence**
/ˈsīəns/NounThe intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural
Nothing in the above definition is not understood by me. That is all science Iss.
It is a question that has an answer based on fact. It is a question that science applies to. But it seems you don't understand even the basics of science and have no inclination to learn about it, so I think we are done here...
Similar threads
