General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Kick if you agree with this assessment about the influence of religion on people. [View all]NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)For example, paleontologists uncover the remains of a species of animal in Africa. Plate tectonics theory has concluded that South America and Africa were part of the same landmass at a certain point, and the fossils of this animal date back to this time. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect to find more fossils of the same species in South America. (That actually happened, by the way. Lystrosaurus.)
Same goes for every scientific theory. We take what we know about how the natural world behaves and apply that knowledge to make predictions. It's not perfect or infallible, but it's been shown to be reliable. And it's the basis for every single modern advancement and development we enjoy. Vaccines are developed by applying the theory of evolution to predict how a virus or bacteria is going to mutate and preemptively developing a vaccine to counter the new strain.
No one's obligating you hold yourself to any particular standard in your own private beliefs. But once you start voicing those beliefs and entering them into the public discourse, people will hold it to the scientific community's standard of observation, testing, falsifiability, and independent verification before it's taken seriously. That's not tribalism or intolerance, that's how scientific fields filter out nonsense.
For example, supply side economics proposes that by allowing the rich to accumulate more and more wealth, the whole of society will benefit when that wealth trickles down to everyone else. After nearly three decades of observation and testing, it has been shown that supply side economics does no such thing. Now, am I intolerant by not wanting to see it further implemented?
Same with austerity. The study which showed austerity's benefit as opposed to Keynesian economics was deeply flawed in its research methodology, and thus its conclusions can't be trusted. Fruit of the poisonous tree. Do we tolerate austerity then, even after it's been shown to be flawed and inaccurate?