Comment

If you disagree without evidence, you’re not wrong. You can propose an alternative theory that is consistent with existing evidence and it’s just as valid as anybody else’s. The mission is then to find evidence which disproves one theory or the other.

Conjecture is fundamental.

source

Sort:hotnew top

maculata@aussie.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
If you disagree without evidence you may, even by pure chance be correct, however without evidence and methodology to discuss it, you may as well be wrong.

source
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The “you” here is misleading. Consider any scientific field, then now consider all the people you know. How many people do you know, if any, who can propose a theory that is equally valid compared to scientific consensus? It’s unlikely most people are friends with Aristotle or the like or are themselves in that boat.

Is it theoretically possible? Sure. Is it more likely that you or I or the stranger who fills this theoretical situation is actually an over confident moron? Overwhelmingly yes lol.

source
- wewbull@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  This thinking just leads to science being turned into a religion. Knowledge being passed down from blessed people who perform obscure practises, and the masses being expected to accept it without question. Science should be open and understood by all. Then it has the weight it deserves and then you can have proper public discourse about issues.
  
  source
  - dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    In no way does this make science religion. What it means is all opinions aren’t created equal and if you want to have one you have to do work. If you dont want to do work that’s fine, but 998 times out of 1000 your “contribution” is being a dipshit.
    
    If you want to learn it learn it. If you want to participate, learn it. Science isn’t just discussion between friends.
    
    source
snooggums@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Without new evidence, disagreeing with established science is being wrong. Young earth creationists are wrong because they have no new evidence to contradict established science. Even thoigh the age of the earth was scientifically calculated multiple times and could be revised again with new evidence, flat earthers are wrong because conjecture about existing knowlege without evidence is just being wrong.

source
- wewbull@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  A young earth creationist’s hypothesis does not agree with existing evidence and so your example does not refute my argument.
  
  source