[JoeT777]

Once again : you have not answered to what I asked : are you or are you not Tj3-Toms777 ? Or are you perhaps Joe of Answerway ?

I am JoeT777. I am not Tj3, Toms777 or Joe of Answerway. No doubt they will take offense knowing that you think I'm one of them.

In that case you have no idea a clue as to what “science” means or for that matter how logic works.

Have it your way Einstein.

As I have stated many times before : science can not be anyone's religion. Science is based on OSE. Religion is based on dogma.

Stating it a thousand times won't make it right resoning.

I have warned before on this board that I will not react to more than 2 or 3 paragraphs of replies. Posting these near-endless replies is wasting time and unnecessary complicating communications. If you can not state your ideas in compact format, than I will restrict my replies.

My thoughts were in a concise format. Too bad you didn't understand.

JoeT

[Credendovidis]

I am JoeT777. I am not Tj3, Toms777 or Joe of Answerway. No doubt they will take offense knowing that you think I’m one of them.

Was that now so difficult to answer first time? Why did I have to ask that again and again and again?

Have it your way Einstein.

Albert, Arik, Isaac, Bob, or another one?

Stating it a thousand times won’t make it right resoning.

No, that is correct. Thousand times does not make it any more valid than once.
But I have to repeat that here on this board because people like you seem unable to understand it from one only post...

My thoughts were in a concise format. Too bad you didn’t understand.

I replied to three paragraphs. I see you can not count neither...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Alder]

May I suggest to you the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn.

[Credendovidis]

Religious dogma's are established opinions. Doctrines of theology and/or religion, formally stated and authorititatively proclaimed by a church. Believers can only accept them, not discuss, change, or upgrade them.

In science there are no dogma's : everything is open to discussion, to check and test, to change and upgrade. And Objective Supported Evidence is at the basis of that process.

Frequently I see statements here in posts like :
- In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality.
- Ask any scientist... if something better comes along they will abandon their current view in a heartbeat.

Such statements can never be made by persons who have a good idea of the Scientific method. They are completely misrepresenting the reality and the Scientific method, as they suggest that science is unreliable because of that checking, changing, and upgrading.
And always they are made by people who stand behind loads of religious dogma's.
A rather hypocrite position, of course !

Note that in science a Theory is as near as one can go to reality, and unlike what we mean with a theory in normal daily life (which in science carries the name (hypo) thesis : something between a claim and a Theory).

From me you may believe whatever suits you. But why not support your own world view or discuss the positives and negatives of your own views, instead of attacking by misrepresentation any opposing views?

For me religious dogma seems a strong negative, as it stiffles any debate on the real basis of and for belief and religion.
For me the Scientific Method is a great good, as it ensures that the current position in any scientific position is as near as possible to the latest available, checked, and tested information.

So what is better , more reliable, and more honest ???

A world view based on beyond-discussion dogmatic claims?
or
A world view based on one or more scientifically tested and re-checked thesis and Theories?