Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tectuktitlay" data-source="post: 6860078" data-attributes="member: 82812">Umm, yeah there is no such thing as settled science. No scientific theory is sacrosanct. New data can and does come around pull even the most established of scientific belief into question. That is a core aspect of science itself. Do people use the term "settled science"? Yes. You will often see laymen, or scientific journalists use the term, but rarely will you actually see scientists or those who understand the scientific method that there can even be such a thing as a settled science. A scientific belief that is the most likely answer based on the evidence and data available? Yes. Settled in an incontrovertible manner? No. That goes against the very foundation of science itself. Wow, what? No. Just, no. Separating belief and dogmatic belief is not "othering". Anymore than separating the notion of a theory versus a scientific theory is "othering". Or separating the concept of faith versus the concept of religious faith (also referred to at times as blind faith). The former can mean, for example, faith in your friends, faith in beliefs because they have evidence for them, the latter explicitly means faith in something despite there being no evidence. It isn't "othering" because it is defining terms so that what term is being used is understood. Othering, that word does not appear to mean what you think it means. No one is being "othered".Who says I hold nothing dogmatically? You, apparently? I never did. Also, no, "reliable" authority is adding extra meaning where none is actually present definitionally. It's just authority. Not reliable, merely incontrovertible truth laid out by authority. Not laid out by reliable authority. No, there are dogmatic beliefs, and there are non-dogmatic beliefs. Painting with broad strokes that most beliefs are dogmatic because of the presence of authority of any sort is muddying the terminology in precisely the same manner that people often do rhetorically, again, with the terms "theory" and "faith". Stating the definitions of the terminology being used clearly so it's understood what one means is in no way, shape, or form othering. Nor is it diving people into the two groups you are building out of straw and beating down. You are the only one arguing that division, here, sorry. Not going to play that silly game. Most people have some dogmatic beliefs. And many beliefs, even many beliefs most people hold, are not dogmatic. Because most beliefs can in fact be discussed with nuance, doubt, and/or skepticism on some level or another. That whole "keeping an open mind" thing, in addition to skepticism. Which means those beliefs aren't actually incontrovertible because sufficient evidence or discussion could convince them to shift said belief in one way or another.</blockquote>

Verification