| In science: -In science, the ideal is that credibility is no substitute for data and logic. That's not always true in practice, especially when the media gets involved. -Premises for which there are no clear need are pursued ardently. "Need" is often rather late to the party, and it frequently never shows up at all. -Theories always remain theories, but become "accepted" once enough tests that could disprove them fail to do so. Even accepted theories are continually tested as new tests are developed. -Belief is irrelevant. -If a theory reduces down to another theory, it isn't really a new theory at all. I'm not sure if your conclusion has anything to do with your arguments either. For what its worth, I've always felt that, for those of us in scientific fields, what is known is miniscule compared to what is unknown, and we're free to believe whatever the heck we want about the unknown so long as we're willing to react logically when some beloved part of our unknown universe becomes known to conflict with what we believe. If you're an agoraphobe, faith can fill in the vast empty spaces where fact and logic have not yet taken us. It's those who put faith first that we must beware of! They often speak of science in similar language as you, as if it were merely another religion with a different set of beliefs, and therefore what you believe is merely a difference of opinion! |