| Blogs > IronManSC |
|
opsayo
591 Posts
A rock fell - that's a single event. The theory of gravity explains that phenomena. A theory are both established, well-accepted, and not remotely up for debate until evidence shows otherwise. The colloquial definition for theory is not the same as the definition of a scientific theory. Stop taking your science lessons from Bible teachers. It blows my mind that people still spout the "its just a theory" retardation to this day. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On October 01 2013 12:09 opsayo wrote: A theory are both established, well-accepted, and not remotely up for debate until evidence shows otherwise.. Sorry, what? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote: I'm afraid many people might not like this insight, and I hate sucking up, but it's pretty much the best one I've heard in ages. I will definitely tell this to my kids, and in that sense hope that they become balanced enough that they don't feel the need to always pick one side and argue/defend it to death to feed to their own integrity/status of the so called ego. The only difference though between research that is today investigated and proven to our best abilities, in the minds of many becomes more relevant than something created ages ago with virtually no proof. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact. The original quote by And G is bullshit. No one "believes" in evolution like they believe in the fundamentalist Christian god. To say that you believe evolution is true is to say that you believe the theory explains the facts as they are currently known but that you are still open to countervailing evidence that modifies, corrects, or even repudiates the theory. I very much doubt that people who "talk big about 'science' today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists" are exactly the same kind of people who would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. Firstly, 300 years ago, there wasn't a good theory for how complex things came from simpler things, so obviously people are more likely to have believed in at least a "watchmaker" deist sort of god. Secondly, people who "talk big about science" are generally educated enough to know that science relies on evidence and that the evidence is oftentimes contradictory. "Belief" in science is not even close to the same kind of belief that "belief in god" is. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
Falsifiability. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
New scientific theories tend to be established whenever a hole in an existing theory is found, often by the dozens. Evidence is something you usually don't find until much later. For a contemporary example, check out all the string theory variants: M-theory seems to be the most popular one these days; not because it has the most evidence in its favour (in fact string theory as a whole is difficult to falsify because it makes few predictions) but because it is the most simple and elegant theory, meaning it relies as little as possible on other unproven theories. On October 01 2013 12:55 IgnE wrote: The original quote by And G is bullshit. No one "believes" in evolution like they believe in the fundamentalist Christian god. To say that you believe evolution is true is to say that you believe the theory explains the facts as they are currently known but that you are still open to countervailing evidence that modifies, corrects, or even repudiates the theory. I very much doubt that people who "talk big about 'science' today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists" are exactly the same kind of people who would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. Firstly, 300 years ago, there wasn't a good theory for how complex things came from simpler things, so obviously people are more likely to have believed in at least a "watchmaker" deist sort of god. Secondly, people who "talk big about science" are generally educated enough to know that science relies on evidence and that the evidence is oftentimes contradictory. "Belief" in science is not even close to the same kind of belief that "belief in god" is. You can have the same kind of belief in science that religious people have in religion. Someone who also disagreed with the post you quoted sent me an angry PM, here's an excerpt of my reply that is relevant to your post: People are brainwashed. Everyone knows the Earth orbits (a point within) the sun. Yet if you ask people how this could be experimentally proven, I'd be surprised if even one out of 100 could give you an answer, and half of them would probably not even comprehend the question. I realize that on the internet, especially on forums related to activities that require or reward a certain minimum intelligence such as Starcraft, scientific illiterature isn't all that common. However, if you talk to random people you meet in a bar or wherever and try to find out what they believe in and why, you will see a vastly different picture. Even if they believe the right things, they will most often believe them for all the wrong reasons. In fact they will often have no problem believing in all those scientific "facts" and also in horoscopes and other bullshit.Did you know Galileo was wrong? He dropped two balls of different masses from the tower of Pisa to demonstrate they took the same time to fall regardless of their mass. However, this is a wrong statement, as you can easily prove yourself: Take two balloons and fill one with air and one with water. Now drop them. Guess which one falls faster? Obviously Galileo's masses just weren't different enough. Galileo's thesis is only true in a vacuum, and unfortunately there was not much vacuum in Pisa. Yet this is one of the most commonly quoted experiments in physics class when discussing classical mechanics. People don't learn science; they learn scientific "facts", and that is a problem. Of course you can also believe in certain scientific theories because you have a fundamental understanding how science works and know how to apply Bayes' theorem to use evidence to update your priors. However, outside of academia this is quite rare, and people who understand science tend not to talk about scientific "facts". | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 01 2013 15:04 And G wrote: I am quite familiar with the concept of falsifiability. What I don't understand is the statement "a [scientific] theory [is] not remotely up for debate until evidence shows otherwise." New scientific theories tend to be established whenever a hole in an existing theory is found, often by the dozens. Evidence is something you usually don't find until much later. For a contemporary example, check out all the string theory variants: M-theory seems to be the most popular one these days; not because it has the most evidence in its favour (in fact string theory as a whole is difficult to falsify because it makes few predictions) but because it is the most simple and elegant theory, meaning it relies as little as possible on other unproven theories. You can have the same kind of belief in science that religious people have in religion. Someone who also disagreed with the post you quoted sent me an angry PM, here's an excerpt of my reply that is relevant to your post: I realize that on the internet, especially on forums related to activities that require or reward a certain minimum intelligence such as Starcraft, scientific illiterature isn't all that common. However, if you talk to random people you meet in a bar or wherever and try to find out what they believe in and why, you will see a vastly different picture. Even if they believe the right things, they will most often believe them for all the wrong reasons. In fact they will often have no problem believing in all those scientific "facts" and also in horoscopes and other bullshit. Of course you can also believe in certain scientific theories because you have a fundamental understanding how science works and know how to apply Bayes' theorem to use evidence to update your priors. However, outside of academia this is quite rare, and people who understand science tend not to talk about scientific "facts". You are just changing the proposition and then claiming that the conclusion is unjustified. No one whose opinion matters cites Galileo's experiment regarding the truth value of the proposition "all objects fall at the same rate in any medium anywhere." It's commonly quoted in physics class precisely because most people think that a feather will fall slower than a rock. Is that lost on you? No one actually thinks a balloon will fall at the same speed as a bowling ball. You are just playing post-hoc semantic games to try and prove that people's "beliefs" about science are the same kind of beliefs that people have about religion. It's bullshit and you know it. Just because a random uneducated person in a bar you meet wouldn't know how to conduct a scientific experiment to save his life, does not mean that he believes in "scientific facts" in the same way that a person believes that Jesus rose from the dead. Most people would be open to changing their mind about a particular scientific fact if you told them you had evidence that they were wrong (assuming of course that your credibility is such that it appears more likely to them that you are right than that you are a crank, if you are trying to convince them that gravity doesn't exist, they obviously won't believe you even if they've never heard of Galileo). | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
So let us say that we are engaging in a purely theological argument and just presuppose that scripture truly is divine. This still doesn't change that the word was written through human expression that is framed in particular cultural and historical contexts. We cannot read Paul without also being hit by an diverse cultural influences, of pre-Rabbinic Jewish messianism, Platonic philosophical concepts, the political climate of the Roman empire, etc. None of this will change that one could believe that the Pauline texts are divinely inspired and that there is a central message within it that is timeless for a Christian. But one cannot simply just read the text straight on as if there is an obviously true centrality to it - it is naive and potentially dangerous to the highest degree. There is a long history within Christianity where Pauline readings are borderline heretical, as Barth points out in his commentary to Romans. Barth himself wanted to actually interpret Paul instead of only doing historical and anthropological reviews of the contexts of the times of Paul as he believed that one really could connect with Paul in an intimate and personal way and I have no problem with that - many people do with age old figures in various disciplines in widely diverse contexts. But nowhere does Barth reject the validity of historical criticism of scripture and doctrine even if he wants to move beyond it. Augustine lived ages before the development of historical and scientific research, so he did not have the privilege to have had all such resources at hand. After all, he lived in a time where it was difficult to even get your hands on manuscripts and there was a lot of shoddy translations going around because translating between Hebrew, Greek, and Latin wasn't very developed and this is something he comments on in De Doctrina Christiana. In there he goes over some common translating errors due to translating between languages in a purely literal way that loses the original meaning of passages and other problems he has encountered in texts. He asks the reader to read as many translations as possible due to this, and his concerns become further justified when the studies of the classics boons with the Humanists who find a slew of errors in the canonical Latin bible that was used by the Catholic Church (the Vulgate). The Protestant Reformers consequently reject it outright and go on with their own scholastic translations into the common language of their lands (Luther's German translation being the first major one). What this has to do with the natural sciences and scripture is that the divine word isn't really unchangeable. Even if it is divinely inspired it is always a human product. Not only because it is by human expertise in exegesis and linguistics that it is translated and made intelligible to the vast majority of Christians that cannot read Hebrew or Greek, but because even the original written words by the biblical authors cannot be extricated from their historical contexts. It may be inspired by God but it was never God itself, it is not God itself, and it will never be God itself. The Christian traditions have always been careful about this so that the bible is not worshiped (which would be heresy). My theological argument would then be that scripture in itself is also not the Truth. It is a way, but it is not the only way, and in a sense it is not a way in itself. An Augustinian line would be that it is Christ that is both what shows the way and is the way, and scripture makes it intelligible. This is why I think biblicalism is very, very misguided. Firstly because it rejects material reality, and secondly because it raises the text to heights that go far beyond what is proper. At points it seems to tread the line of heresy. But is not the text material? Is it not senseless to abstract the material text from the world? Scripture is necessary and it is one of, if not the centrality for the faith as that is where it starts from. It is what makes it intelligible and it is the cornerstone that serves as the axis for all understanding of what Christianity is. It is read and reread, always, and as such it is always interpreted. It has always been interpreted from the beginning of Christianity with the Patristic writers. There has never been a singular reading of the scripture as if there is only one meaning to it. From the beginning of Christianity the interpretation of scripture has never been univocal, it has always been pluralistic. Is this a sign that there is no Truth to the religion? Maybe. But I see it more as the sign that it's a religion that's still alive. If one day every scholar can agree on what Christianity is and what the correct interpretation of all the texts are then it would be because they are staring at the petrified corpse of Christianity. I'm not going to say that you are a heretic or you are some sinister person or whathaveyou for your biblical literalism as samzdat is doing here because I don't think it's the right way to have a dialogue with someone who seems to take this all seriously. I myself did not have the right attitude in my posts for the past week and I do apologize about that to everyone. I have been unnecessarily antagonistic and it shouldn't be excused away just because I've lost my patience on this topic more than once on this forum. But I do want to say that I think you are very misguided along with countless other Protestants in the Anglo nations and South Korea. One must have the humility to defer to the experts on areas of life one is not an expert of. A theologian must not reject offhand what the biblical scholar's research may provide in uncovering the history of scripture just because he or she doesn't like it instinctively. And as a lay person would put their faith on the theologians for understanding their own faith, people also have to approach the scientists with good faith in their research of natural phenomena because they know better than us. To refuse to do this is nothing but hubris. There may be an absolute qualitative difference between God and man, but nevertheless Christian doctrine believes that Christ was fully God and fully man. Was the world rejected? No. Have you studied evolutionary theory? You haven't, so don't speak about it. You don't have the right to reject it or not by abusing scripture. Has Christian doctrine developed through a purely literal reading of scripture? No. Not only due to interpretation, but there are slews of poetic verses all throughout scripture. Not even literalists read the entirety of scripture literally - it would be absurd. If you really are well meaning then I would only ask that you don't spend your time critiquing the world with a literal reading of scripture because it is insulting to all parties. If faith makes you lose sight of material reality and your place in the world as one small individual that doesn't have the expertise or authority to make judgement on things that you don't know, then that faith is questionable. Not only questionable, but perhaps also very insecure. Karl Barth in the preface to the third edition to The Epistle to the Romans No human word, no word of Paul, is absolute truth. In this I agree with Bultmann - and surely with all intelligent people. But what does the relativity of all human speech mean? Does relativity mean ambiguity? Assuredly it does. But how can I demonstrate it better than by employing the whole of my energy to disclose the nature of this ambiguity? More than one reader of my book has learned from it to understand the uncertainty of Paulinism. I do not object to the book being so used. But nevertheless, we must learn to see beyond Paul. This can only be done, however, if, with utter loyalty and with a desperate earnestness, we endeavour to penetrate his meaning. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On October 01 2013 15:26 IgnE wrote: You are just changing the proposition and then claiming that the conclusion is unjustified. I'm not claiming that scientists don't understand science. I'm claiming that average people don't understand science. Are you seriously disagreeing with that? The reason why a feather falls slower than a rock lies not so much in its mass as in its shape. People know balloons fall slower than bowling balls, but they think Galileo proved anything with his ball experiment, and they are too untrained in scientific thinking to see a contradiction there unless you purposely draw their attention to it. Schools do not teach that experiment as an example how not to prove scientific theories. I'm not arguing about what kind of beliefs people have, I'm arguing about why people have the beliefs they have. Science is all about the why; if your reasoning is wrong then it doesn't matter if you arrive at the correct result. People know the results, but they don't know how to get there. Effectively, most educated people outside academia believe in scientific facts/theories because they read them in books, because their authorities tell them so, and because they are accepted by their peers. That's hardly any different from believing in the world being ~10000 years in a time where books/authorities/peers promoted that particular belief. It's not as if people got spectacularly more intelligent and rational over the last few hundred years. If people can believe in unbelievably stupid crap like blood type horoscopes, what makes you think their belief in scientific facts is any more well-founded than other people's belief in religion? | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On October 01 2013 15:53 And G wrote: It's not as if people got spectacularly more intelligent and rational over the last few hundred years. No, however, we have become far more critical. When it comes to religion, you're not allowed to criticize. You're supposed to simply believe and have faith. In modern society (at least western society), being critical is one of the first things they teach you in school, you should never trust something at face value, you should read up on alternatives then decide what you believe. This doesn't mean someone can't be critical of scientific beliefs, read up on a religion and decide that's what they believe in. However, it does change the fundamentals of religion and science. Even if faith in science and faith in religion was identical, the very fact that science encourages critical thinking makes it vastly different. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 01 2013 15:53 And G wrote: I'm not claiming that scientists don't understand science. I'm claiming that average people don't understand science. Are you seriously disagreeing with that? The reason why a feather falls slower than a rock lies not so much in its mass as in its shape. People know balloons fall slower than bowling balls, but they think Galileo proved anything with his ball experiment, and they are too untrained in scientific thinking to see a contradiction there unless you purposely draw their attention to it. Schools do not teach that experiment as an example how not to prove scientific theories. I'm not arguing about what kind of beliefs people have, I'm arguing about why people have the beliefs they have. Science is all about the why; if your reasoning is wrong then it doesn't matter if you arrive at the correct result. People know the results, but they don't know how to get there. Effectively, most educated people outside academia believe in scientific facts/theories because they read them in books, because their authorities tell them so, and because they are accepted by their peers. That's hardly any different from believing in the world being ~10000 years in a time where books/authorities/peers promoted that particular belief. It's not as if people got spectacularly more intelligent and rational over the last few hundred years. If people can believe in unbelievably stupid crap like blood type horoscopes, what makes you think their belief in scientific facts is any more well-founded than other people's belief in religion? Belief in a blood type horoscope is exactly the kind of belief that belief in science is not. It does not respond to evidence. Most people have the beliefs they have because someone trustworthy told them that it was so. You can not verify the vast majority of things you are told. That does not make your belief about those things unjustified. It also does not make those beliefs the same kinds of beliefs that people have about god or about astrology. It really doesn't matter whether someone understands how physics works for their beliefs about gravity or electromagnetism to be justified, because, in principle, they could investigate those beliefs for themselves. The why only matters for the belief in general, not for each individual who holds the belief. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
When someone has so little regard for the real, it makes you wonder what kind of cockamamie beliefs they have about things that actually matter. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On October 01 2013 16:02 Tobberoth wrote: No, however, we have become far more critical. I agree that being critical (of pretty much anything in fact) has become far more accepted by society. However, the number of people who actually think critically is alarmingly low. This is because of fundamental aspects of the human psyche, namely the tendency to accept that as true what one wants to be true, and a general aversion to focused thinking. Also, I have no idea what kind of school you went to, but I went to a (not entirely unprestigious) "science-oriented" high school in Germany, and critical thinking was only allowed within certain bounds, that is if it led to the answers given in the textbooks. From what I have gathered from people I know (although admittedly none of them went to school in the US) this seems to be the standard in Europe and Asia. Of course I agree that there exists a fundamental difference between science and religion, namely the scientific method. Basically, you can believe in scientific theories for rational reasons, and you can't believe in theological teachings for rational reasons. However, you can also believe in scientific theories for irrational reasons, and this is what far too many do, and why I am wary of people who cheer for "scientific facts" just as loudly as fundamentalists cheer for whatever their religions promotes. On October 01 2013 16:19 koreasilver wrote: The average person might not know exactly how the scientific method works and how scientific research really operates but they have the right to trust in scientific output because it has proven itself to be useful again and again. This is a key statement and one I largely agree with. However, there are two problems with it; namely that for the average person, real scientific output is undistinguishable from pseudo-scientific output, and secondly, that most of the things we have been discussing in this thread such as evolution aren't exactly the kind of output that has real-life applications. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On October 01 2013 16:27 IgnE wrote: Belief in a blood type horoscope is exactly the kind of belief that belief in science is not. It does not respond to evidence. I don't know how to make my point more clear, because I think we're talking past each other. So I'll just quote what I wrote in reply to Tobberoth: On October 01 2013 16:36 And G wrote: Scientific theories are (usually) falsifiable, but most people don't say "I believe X because I could verify it if I wanted to". The reason why they believe in X is because X is a socially accepted belief, and the reason why X is a socially accepted belief is usually because X has been endorsed by the scientific community. However, religion, astrology and so on are also socially accepted, so you will also find respective believers.You can believe in scientific theories for rational reasons, and you can't believe in theological teachings for rational reasons. However, you can also believe in scientific theories for irrational reasons, and this is what far too many do. Theoretically, beliefs in science and religion/astrology are vastly different. In practice, however, your average (educated) person believes them for comparable reasons, and these are the same reasons why people 300 years ago believed in whatever their priests told them. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 01 2013 17:02 And G wrote: In practice, however, your average (educated) person believes them for comparable reasons, and these are the same reasons why people 300 years ago believed in whatever their priests told them. I disagree very much. You are running roughshod over important, distinguishable features that illustrate the difference between the two kinds of belief (there might even be a third kind of belief here, the kind that people had 300 years ago as a result of whatever their priests told them). "Why do you believe Jesus is divine?" "Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" Those two questions lead to two very different conversations. The belief in the first question begins and ends with an inherently implacable, indefensible faith. The belief in the second question begins with reasons. The first reason out of the person's might be that they heard it on the news, but the second belief does not assume its own veracity like the first does. If enough evidence were marshaled with enough credibility the belief in the second question would give way and be replaced with a new belief. Perhaps something like "vaccines probably don't cause autism." The point is that ignorance and shoddy reasoning have nothing to do with science. The problem of uncritically holding beliefs has more to do with philosophy and logic than it does with science. But the two kinds of belief that you are trying to equate are fundamentally different, despite your protestations. You can say "average (educated) people believe in evolution in the same way that they believe jesus was divine" because they are both derived from the pronouncements of authority figures, but that doesn't make them the same kind of belief. One is fundamentally based on empiricism and one is fundamentally based on faith. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On October 01 2013 16:36 And G wrote: Also, I have no idea what kind of school you went to, but I went to a (not entirely unprestigious) "science-oriented" high school in Germany, and critical thinking was only allowed within certain bounds, that is if it led to the answers given in the textbooks. From what I have gathered from people I know (although admittedly none of them went to school in the US) this seems to be the standard in Europe and Asia. I'm very surprised by this, this is most definitely not the standard in Sweden and I'm pretty sure it's the same in the rest of Scandinavia. If a textbook says something is true and you question it, it's up to the teacher to explain why it's true, if the teacher says "Because the textbook says so", he would probably lose his job. Now obviously, we're not asked to question every single thing we read in our textbooks, we're supposed to learn what it contains, but learning how to find sources for absolute statements and evaluate how reliable the information is, is key. If a teacher knows what he's doing, I seriously doubt a student will successfully argue the point to a position where the answer is actually different from the textbook. And if that happens, great, write a paper on it. | ||
|
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote: I disagree very much. You are running roughshod over important, distinguishable features that illustrate the difference between the two kinds of belief (there might even be a third kind of belief here, the kind that people had 300 years ago as a result of whatever their priests told them). "Why do you believe Jesus is divine?" "Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" Those two questions lead to two very different conversations. The belief in the first question begins and ends with an inherently implacable, indefensible faith. The belief in the second question begins with reasons. The first reason out of the person's might be that they heard it on the news, but the second belief does not assume its own veracity like the first does. In theory, marshalling enough evidence with enough credibility the belief in the second question would give way and be replaced with a new belief. Perhaps something like "vaccines probably don't cause autism." The point is that ignorance and shoddy reasoning have nothing to do with science. The problem of uncritically holding beliefs has more to do with philosophy and logic than it does with science. But the two kinds of belief that you are trying to equate are fundamentally different, despite your protestations. You can say "average (educated) people believe in evolution in the same way that they believe jesus was divine" because they are both derived from the pronouncements of authority figures, but that doesn't make them the same kind of belief. One is fundamentally based on empiricism and one is fundamentally based on faith. If you asked "What proof do you have that Jesus is divine?" and "What proof do you have that vaccines cause autism", the answers would be much the same. "The Bible says so/the church says so/I think so". "I read it in a peer reviewed journal/some scientists say so/the news said so/I think so". On October 01 2013 16:02 Tobberoth wrote: No, however, we have become far more critical. When it comes to religion, you're not allowed to criticize. You're supposed to simply believe and have faith. In modern society (at least western society), being critical is one of the first things they teach you in school, you should never trust something at face value, you should read up on alternatives then decide what you believe. This doesn't mean someone can't be critical of scientific beliefs, read up on a religion and decide that's what they believe in. However, it does change the fundamentals of religion and science. Even if faith in science and faith in religion was identical, the very fact that science encourages critical thinking makes it vastly different. I have to disagree here. Heresies, the Protestant Reformation, the split of the Roman Catholic Church into East and West, and later Anglican and Catholic, while there were many reasons for these, "believing and having faith" was certainly not one of them. Criticism has existed as long as there have been men. I don't know what schools you've been going to but New Zealand state schools do not teach you to read up on alternatives and decide what you believe. You're told what is truth according to the state, and then expected to believe it. And religion doesn't discourage critical thinking, from my experience of it at least. I can't speak for everyone's experience, of course, but I've been taught for a very long time to be analytic of the different religions, beliefs, and so on, and have not been discouraged from questioning and criticizing. From what I know of state schooling, essentially the opposite is taught. You're expected to not question the status quo, but merely accept what you are told. Anything less will result in worse grades in most schools and subjects. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote: "Why do you believe Jesus is divine?" "Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" "Because I've been told so, and if in doubt I can look it up in scripture / on Wikipedia." Seriously, that's how it works for most people. I tried this, I went around and asked random people I met (e.g. when commuting) about their beliefs, and rarely I saw reason involved. I'm not saying my "research" was very scientific, or the results statistically significant, but I saw some pretty alarming tendencies there. Edit: Also, what Birdie said. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On October 01 2013 17:41 Birdie wrote: If you asked "What proof do you have that Jesus is divine?" and "What proof do you have that vaccines cause autism", the answers would be much the same. "The Bible says so/the church says so/I think so". "I read it in a peer reviewed journal/some scientists say so/the news said so/I think so". That isn't much the same. Someone can read the peer reviewed journals, find the experiments and reproduce them to get empirical evidence to persuade themselves that it's true. Someone can read the bible, but it doesn't go any further than that, because there is nothing beyond that. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games B2W.Neo652 FrodaN592 JimRising  325mouzStarbuck92 ZombieGrub86 Trikslyr76 Mew2King60 ViBE42 KnowMe34 RuFF_SC212 |
|
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
Bellum Gens Elite
SC Evo League
Fire Grow Cup
CSO Contender
BSL: ProLeague
StRyKeR vs MadiNho
Cross vs UltrA
TT1 vs JDConan
Bonyth vs Sziky
Replay Cast
SOOP Global
Creator vs Rogue
Cure vs Classic
SOOP
Classic vs GuMiho
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
