This is a discussion on Why is evolution so popular? within the The Debate Forum forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; Originally Posted by Azrael "Stable?" What, like mentally? You're kidding, right? The only difference that I've noticed between the two ...
But, what is the point in discussing this then?
In what, discussing my fallibilism? I've tried to avoid it here, but this time it seemed unavoidable.
Or you mean, why do I bother to participate? I love a good debate.
The truth is far better to me than a pleasant fantasy.
Albeit not a satisfying truth.
So, a process of refining hypotheses through vigorous experimentation is more suspect to you than someone who dogmatically claims absolute knowledge?
Yet experiments seem to get obsolete when new data emerges, or when something is proven to be/have been a hoax - which is somewhat common.
Some epistemologists have taken fallibilism to imply skepticism, according to which none of those claims or views are ever well justified or knowledge. In fact, though, it is fallibilist epistemologists (which is to say, the majority of epistemologists) who tend not to be skeptics about the existence of knowledge or justified belief. Generally, those epistemologists see themselves as thinking about knowledge and justification in a comparatively realistic way — by recognizing the fallibilist realities of human cognitive capacities, even while accommodating those fallibilities within a theory that allows perpetually fallible people to have knowledge and justified beliefs.
Fallibilism[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
If evolution is wrong, that would mean that literally everything ever discovered in the field of biology is a hoax. When scientists do their hoaxes it's always over minor points of quibble that don't effect the overall theory. Do you honestly think Piltdown man's existence or non-existence would change whether or not evolution is true? Do you honestly believe scientists were fooled for even a minute? They weren't. The media sure picked it up, though. That's why we have the peer-review process.
You show a stunning lack of understanding of what science even is. Amend their beliefs frequently? What the fuck are you talking about? You mean the fact that they have a hypothesis that they're working on and then test it for validity? And if it's shown to be false they make new ones and test those? WOW! Is THAT what science is? That's so dirty and shameless and how can anyone... oh wait that's exactly how we have the modern world? That's the only reason we have medicine and technology?
The sheer amount of evidence for the Theory of Evolution would make its proven non-existence akin to the plot twist in a mystery novel in which the murderer turned out to be Tom Cruise, who by the way wasn't mentioned in the book until the very last page, when every detail of the crime pointed to the butler (not Tom Cruise's butler, but like the proverbial butler).
If you want to take a solipsist point of view, that's fine. It's your game. But if nothing is true and everything is up in the air, then why are you so argumentative over science? It can't be known, so don't bother. Let the big boys play that game.
This concession makes any sort of debate somewhat meaningless, doesn't it?
No Iron Age myth can compare.
I dare you to find a religion with such a powerful self-correcting mechanism.
Here's a list of internet hoaxes:
Hoax Busters - the BIG LIST of Internet Hoaxes
Here is a very incomplete list of hoaxes:
List of hoaxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here's the top ten scientific hoaxes:
Top 10 Scientific Frauds and Hoaxes - Top 10 Lists | Listverse
And then there's the paranormal. Nobody who studies the paranormal as intently as I do believes science as whole-heartedly as you or Azrael. Science cannot explain x-ray vision, poltregeists, ghosts, telekinesis, and a lot of other paranormal phenomena. Yet, for some reason, more and more cases are reported, psychical societies are filling up their books of more and more phenomena, and what are scientists saying? IT DOESN'T EXIST!
The number of people believing something does not make it true or false. Consensus can be useful for a lot of things, yes, but the number of people believing something has no bearing on whether it is actually correct or not.
So personally I don't care if it is only one scientist in the entire world, as long as what they are showing makes sense. Who they are doesn't matter, their degrees don't matter, the fact that it is a person at all saying anything doesn't matter. The analysis of what is presented itself is all that matters.
James Randi still has yet to find a psychic willing to perform their magical powers in a lab...and he is offering one million dollars to anyone would can demonstrate these abilities.
Just because a lot of people believe it doesn't mean there is actually any valid evidence for it.
A thousand anecdotes are worthless compared to an experiment done in a controlled environment.
Your opinion is the common one, I must say. You've been so brainwashed that science has all the answers that you won't accept the possibility that science is intentionally avoiding an undesirable piece of the proverbial puzzle.
Charles Fort - he studied science journals and found some 60,000 discrepancies!
William R. Corliss is, in a way, similar: William R. Corliss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Fortean Times is a monthly magazine featuring only the most prominent of such cases.
Every pro-science person I have ever spoken or written to says the same thing: it's all fake, it doesn't matter how many people witness it.
Yet, when you ask them to at the very least take a look into it, they'll become hostile!