religion
religion
Out of context: Reply #846
- Started
- Last post
- 3,481 Responses
- Morning_star0
I think one of the issues with scientific proof is the rigid and established processes that have to be adhered to. 'Science' requires that you replicate results in a lab with established 'material' techniques with a peer reviewed paper, otherwise your claim has no scientific value and can be labeled woo woo without consideration. This approach seems backwards to me, it essentially claims that all of the laws of the universe are known and unless your theory is provable using those laws then you're talking shit. This approach does not foster the progression of scientific understanding.
- This isn't true at all and explains a lot about your unique perspective on the matter.monospaced
- Care to expand?Morning_star
- So you're problem with scientific proofs is that they are scientific proofs, basically.hereswhatidid
- Not enough just random nonsense being accepted as valid without any evidence to support.hereswhatidid
- your assumptions about how the scientific process works is fundamentally flawed, that's allmonospaced
- aka, there's more than just lab tests... you must know thismonospaced