IIN that scientists make stuff up when evidence points to a creator

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

← View full post
Comments ( 9 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • qwerty098765
    11 years ago | pl

    There is no data that directly points towards a creator. The difference between religious people looking for this 'evidence' specifically and scientists is that scientists (should) aim to look for explanations beyond bias, taking all of the variables into account, whereas believers look for hints for a creator only, ignoring all evidence that does not agree with their ideas.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    4
    4
      -
    • flutterhigh
      11 years ago | pl

      But surely this random layperson knows better than centuries of study in the scientific community, right? Surely this anonymous stranger on the internet is the only one that can see past the confirmation bias so ever-present in scientific theory.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      Report
      2
      2
        -
      • qwerty098765
        11 years ago | pl

        I don't. I however know people who do know better.
        The fact that I am not a scientist does not change anything about the fact that religious believers tend to display a conformation bias way stronger than secular scientists'.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        Report
        1
        1
          -
        • flutterhigh
          11 years ago | pl

          You misread my sarcasm. I was referring to the original story author. Though I absolutely disagree your last statement - it isn't that scientists are less prone to confirmation bias, it's that the scientific method requires external peer-review. So the unavoidable confirmation bias is minimized by third-party analysis. That doesn't mean that an individual scientist is inherently less biased than any other individual.

          For reference of confirmation bias is scientific history: cold fusion, N-rays, homeopathy, etc.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          Report
          0
          0
            -
          • qwerty098765
            11 years ago | pl

            I first thought you were the poll creator, sorry...this is what tiredness does to me, ugh.

            I guess my wording was pretty much wrong then...the reason that the scientific community's results are generally less biased (or should be ideally) is because of its efforts to test hypothesises and analyse results by a wide range of people.

            I wouldn't call things like homoeopathy science though..their 'research' is pseudo-scientific at best.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            Report
            0
            0
              -
            • flutterhigh
              11 years ago | pl

              It's okay.

              I just meant that homeopathy was historically considered acceptable science. Most of that was eradicated with a more rigorous peer-review system, but even then things like cold fusion and N-rays still slipped through the cracks.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              Report
              0
              0