Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BrainSmashR
Science isn't a Democracy....being in the majority is irrelevant.
|
I have already demonstrated the relevance of the majority. Even if the chances are slim, it is possible that a genius could be a moron and a moron could be a genius. Almost anything is possible. But what makes a genius a genius is the number of people who think he/she is smart. Likewise a moron is created by the number of people who think he/she is dumb. The majority defines your life for everyone (except yourself) which is what inescapably binds you to society. What makes the color red is the number of people who call something red.
But the reason for my post this time is to demonstrate how the scientific community is in many ways the ultimate Democracy. Hundreds of scientists investigate a particular issue through hypothesis and experimentation. Then all in the science community cast their vote by taking sides with the various camps that believe one theory over another. Newer discoveries displace older ones that were "fact" once upon a time, but get upgraded as new information is uncovered. Over time, the scientific community gets smarter but at any instance, everything they know is wrong - that is, everything they know is destined to grow and be upgraded to the next step of understanding.
The Word of God is one thing that I can count on because it hasn't been upgraded but twice in thousands of years. That fact alone is testament to its longevity and relevance in society. Compare that to scientific software manuals that need upgrading with every new version making the old information irrelevant.