[ SECRET POST #2872 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2872 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 019 secrets from Secret Submission Post #410.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Do you believe in evolution?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not arguing that science is a monolith. As you said, science supports evolution, which is a good reason to believe in it.

Re: Do you believe in evolution?

[(Anonymous)]

Science supporting evolution is NOT the reason to support evolution. Science supporting evolution is a terrible reason to support evolution. The reason to support evolution is because the EVIDENCE supports evolution, as evaluated through the scientific method. And to me, those phrases don't signify the same thing.

Re: Do you believe in evolution?

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry. I view the two to be pretty much synonymous, which is why I phrased it that way, it wasn't meant to upset you. Is there a scenario where you see that science supports _______, but the evidence doesn't? How would that even work?

Re: Do you believe in evolution?

[(Anonymous)]

I guess to me, it's more of a divide between science as a method and science as an institution. Believing in something because science supports it, to me, means believing it because a bunch of people in labcoats with lots of letters after their names; believing in something because evidence supports it means, obviously, believing in it on the basis of evidence.

It's possible for those two things to divide, of course, but I don't think it's at all likely. But that's not the point for me: even if the evidence supports science, as it usually does, I think those are still two distinct things and two distinct reasons to believe in something.

Re: Do you believe in evolution?

[(Anonymous)]

I see. Pardon my confusion! I guess I don't view science as an institution, per se, not in the context of this discussion, anyway. I usually think of it as the method.