Do scientists believe in unicorns?

[Subduction Zone]

All men have doctrines, you just dont see it. You think science is holy and above all the folly of mankind, but that's far from reality.

If you want to claim this then you need to define what you mean by the word "doctrine". But you are wrong, I do not think that science is holy. The scientific method is the best method that we have right now for answering life's questions. It is not perfect. If it was perfect it would not need a self correcting mechanism. The problem is that theists as a rule have doctrinal beliefs that can be shown to be wrong, but since there is no self correction in most religions they are stuck with those errors for quite some time.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Do scientists belive in unicorns?

I entertain every single thing. I have experienced (not only with sight) too many things in the lab, and in my normal life that have forced my mind to stay wide open.

So, unicorns and dragons (for me) is very fair game.

 

[HitchSlap]

I entertain every single thing. I have experienced (not only with sight) too many things in the lab, and in my normal life that have forced my mind to stay wide open.

So, unicorns and dragons (for me) is very fair game.

Is ToE also "fair game?"

 

[tatteredsoul]

ToE

ToE?

 

[HitchSlap]

ToE?

Theory of Evolution.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Theory of Evolution.

Oh yea I entertain it all day. Seriously - and especially depending with whom I am speaking.

As a caveat: me entertaining everything does not mean I accept it, or believe it. But, I won't call someone stupid or anything for believing what they believe.

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh yea I entertain it all day. Seriously - and especially depending with whom I am speaking.

As a caveat: me entertaining everything does not mean I accept it, or believe it. But, I won't call someone stupid or anything for believing what they believe.

Do you accept ToE as fact?

 

[tatteredsoul]

Do you accept ToE as fact?

No.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Do you accept ToE as fact?

Do you mean the ToE as described in the text On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?

Answer is still no.

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you mean the ToE as described in the text On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?

Yes, including neo-Darwinian synthesis of ToE.

Answer is still no.

So that whole bit about being open-minded was rhetoric?

 

[tatteredsoul]

Yes, including neo-Darwinian synthesis of ToE.


So that whole bit about being open-minded was rhetoric?

No. Not any Darwinian ToE at all. It is a silently destructive doctrine for reasons not obviously assumed. I am physicist so at some times I have to entertain certain aspects of the ToE. In undergrad biology, I had to entertain it in order to do well in the class. It doesn't mean I believe it to be true. I am also of few that strongly believe in magnetic monopoles; about 96% of the physics community disagrees with me. That doesn't mean I argue with my colleagues about the incorrectness of Maxwell's equations, or how electricity and magnetism are not fully coupled via the physics as nature would suggest. When I wrote my thesis, I spent only a page on the subject of possible magnetic monopoles, and a reformation of Maxwells equations as coupled equations. I continued with my calculations and writing as if they never existed for the rest of the work. My colleagues entertain my theory(ies) like the monopole, but very few actually accept it as true (despite semi-stable synthetic monopoles created in lab.)

I entertain everything because I don't know everything. But, I have a choice to believe and accept what I want to accept. Just because I entertain it doesn't automatically make it true to me. I just won't admonish anyone for believing what they believe just because it goes against the status quo (in any field,) or because it sounds silly. People thought it was silly to say that little living organisms inside and outside of us cause illness, or that can be peptic ulcers were caused by bacteria. Now, it is "common knowledge."

 

[HitchSlap]

No. Not any Darwinian ToE at all.

Then I'm not surprised in the least you allow for the possibility of dragons and unicorns.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Then I'm not surprised in the least you allow for the possibility of dragons and unicorns.

Ok.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Philosophically, I take the Aristotle approach:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

 

[HitchSlap]

Philosophically, I take the Aristotle approach:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

And the denial of a scientific theory is the mark of what kind of mind?

 

[AV1611VET]

And the denial of a scientific theory is the mark of what kind of mind?

A scientific one?

Such as when Combustion theory pwned Phlogiston theory?

 

[HitchSlap]

A scientific one?

Such as when Combustion theory pwned Phlogiston theory?

Cue Pluto in 3 - 2 - 1...

 

[TLK Valentine]

All men have doctrines, you just dont see it. You think science is holy and above all the folly of mankind, but that's far from reality.

You truly have nothing, we see.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Possibly you're projecting?

Projecting what?

 

[tatteredsoul]

And the denial of a scientific theory is the mark of what kind of mind?

A critically thinking mind - at least if we are equivocating denial to non-belief/non-acceptance.