| Science
is about being guided by the evidence not by personal feelings or
opinions. Scientific theories must be supported with evidence or they
are rejected as psuedo science or junk science. The evidence is
paramount in all scientific proceedings nothing that is based on belief
alone can be accepted everything must be supported with evidence.
Granted the evidence is open to interpretation and those
interpretations are bias and prejudical they are considered justifiable
if the evidence supports them the evidence is paramount in all things.
But the problem with science has always been the morality or the ethics
behind it for example, is it okay to kill people in order to advance
science?! Is it okay to infect people or expose people to a disease
just for the purpose of scientific knowledge?! This is nothing new,
during the first World War Adolf Hitler considered it
acceptable not only to kill but to mess around with people's genes
and create people with different gene pools solely for the purpose of
advancing scientific knowedge?! The science in question was called
eugenics the scientists of today boycott it and won't deal with it
deliberately because of how the evidence that supports it was obtained
but this begs the question, if science is all about the evidence and
the evidence is paramount in all things why is the evidence collected
from eugenics deliberately ignored because it was collected
unethically or immorally?! One may say eugenics was a special
case things are different in that situation and that may be the
case up until we reach your science on chaotic evolution and find
the same thing, it's being boycotted because of the person who
did it! Not that people died in order to benefit your science not
that your experiements were unethical or immoral like they
were with eugenices your case is different in the sense the
one doing the science couldn't be trusted to do the science when there
was no evidence to support that belief. The school who made them
believe that had admitted they made a mistake and did it to the
wrong person yet they disregard your science because of their
personal opinions towards you even though their sources had made a
mistake they make a personal judgment on the quality of your
science and chose to disregard it?! So in your case it is a question of
ethics and morals that no one should accept your science because it was
done by a untrustworthy, untruthful and dishonest person when there is
no evidence to make such a conclusion since those who made these claims
later apologised for doing it to the wrong one! While some would
say what is the point of this attack on science they made a mistake
because the school made a mistake?! Let me put it this way, how
would you feel if the one doing the science was a padeophile?! The
evidence has no impact on their science does it?! It's not about the
evidence it's about what you personally think of the person doing the
science! |
Back 2 Front