On Jun 17, 2014, at 3:46 AM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> To make it clear (if possible): > > A: You had stated: "I think the reason is that we are dealing with a pretty static design (humans) that hasn?t changed in a very long time". > > B: I had claimed: "you have alas failed to realise that human beings are blessed (or cursed) with the power of (human) thinking and rationality, which is a characteristic that has been scientifically proven to be pretty dynamic, fluid, able to change itself according to the circumstance". > > There's a difference. Do you see the difference?
Yes, I am a realist and you are dreaming. The world does not appear to be changing. I am not saying I don?t wish it would, just that it isn?t. And by the way, that isn?t science. You don?t do an experiment or two and then make a bold prediction that people are malleable and that be the end of it. The next step has to be to show people being malleable.
The way the term *science* is thrown around these days is just crazy. It is a testament to the notion that a little education is a dangerous thing. People, even people with PhD?s, think that science is proving hypothesis A, making up an argument that A implies B, and then proclaiming B is thus true. In science, B is only ever true if you prove it true with evidence. If you prove A and then make an argument that A implies that the sky is green, the sky is only green if the sky is actually green. People don?t understand that in science, there is no such thing as proof by implication. That only works in mathematics. In science everything must be proven with physical evidence. Furthermore, people think that evidence proves things in mathematics, although if given the choice of proof by implication in science or proof by evidence in mathematics, I would wholeheartedly take the latter over the former.