who supposedly dealing the subjects with fact based rationalism,  still making utterly

dubious explanation to such as the nuclear or environmental issues.

And he said, is there any relation or influence of the persons belief system to even a scientific

research and its conclusion.

—– Well, my answer was,

1)  The science what we ordinary folks generally know is.  only a corner of popular science and there

are many [another kind of] science —– such as creationist’s / Christian science or some pseuedo

sciences etc. etc. —– Even a Black Hole or 4^th Dimension are out of our comprehension still,

they are regarded to be the science.

2)  The science is not an absolute truth.    It is more like a technique of debate.

In one frame-work,  using the fact(s) as the evidence and construct the theory or hypothesis.

Then from the theory, make a model or an expected projection and apply to the other samples.

If its works on the other samples —– the theory is proved to be true.

The matters in the debate is to convince others. = If the others were convinced,  it became an

established or widely accepted theory.  Still, not necessary everybody,  hence it may split the science

community or society general. —– Some are following, others are not.

3)  Discovery of the facts and the technology which can affect  them are changing everyday.

New facts and the new approach and the techniques are keep appearing

and the re-examination of previous results or theories are taking place everyday —– hence,

the truth yesterday is not necessary so tomorrow.

Therefore,  some may convinced but to others,  it may seem to be utterly rubbish and fraud.

( Remember, until 250 years ago,  the lightning was understood to be an anger of the Good,  until

very courageous and lucky Benjamin Franklin catch it into a jar and proved it was electricity.

( I’m puzzling how and why he wasn’t killed  😀 ))

non

I definitely know, the sun is rising every day and goes round in the sky but never noticed

the ground / earth is rotating —– still, I accept the sun is in the centre,  not the earth

—– by the widely accepted science as I got no basis to contest it.  I have no choice but to join 😀

We know what is electricity —– to connect a light bulb to battery,  it would light up thanks to the

flow of electron —– though,  nobody ever seen what is the electron.

All the evidences are circumstantial,  in other words we are seeing only its effects.

Yet still,  we need and use its effect.   We don’t care what is taking place in a coil in the motor —–

as long as it’s rotates.   ( Some of you might remember the Rule of right hand to know the relation of

electric current, magnetic field and the direction of movement —– we can see the fingers, but

rest of the phenomena = we only believe )

Yet, as it explain well and the effects are always consistent,  we convinced it is the TRUTH)

We know thousands, even millions of phenomena in its appearances but need to believe the truth

or the theories behind.   Our imagination is filling the gap by what we call  [intelligence].

non

Unfortunately we human being is still not clever enough to handle vast amount of factors and

the parameters in such as environmental phenomenon though, clever enough to select convenient

facts to construct a model which conveniently conveys the opinion —– regardless

whether it was true or not. ( I’m not suggesting,  I’m odd with conservationists,  but saying how hard

to construct [a model] which is having millions of parameters of which we haven’t even discovered yet)

non

When we handle the matters in the nature or even about ourself we encounter the invisible of

which the whole truth hasn’t been fully discovered,  and there may be the unknowable.

In fact, we know only very little.   So that, even in a critical science we hide the gap of knowledges

behind of such as the statistical numbers —– hence the theory or prediction is only a guess.

If we have to deal with a matter which got too much unknowable, we either construct

metaphysics or myth —– or religion.   If you believe, it is the truth,  hence the belief system.

Non

My friend’s argument was, even a scientist who is having a strong belief system (its might have

hidden deep in their subconscious, due to their up bringing)  may tend to creates a theory

more imaginative (or Dogmatic ) than the facts based objective science.

———- ?— Its might be true.

And they might be believing and aiming the more positive outcome of the theory which would

coherent with the idea of promised land and the harmony —– subconsciously construct the

theory to proof the God was correct and the world is perfect.  Therefore,  such as an

environmental model should have automatic feed-back and self-preservation.

( And they knew the theory of self-destruction is not popular to get a financial support )

In fact, the universe would continue to exists even without the notion of the God and its alleged

creation —– practically the system looks to continue  for ever 😀

( Since the geological time scale is too long for us to imagine )

non

We are standing the moment to establish the final General Theory which may proof

the multidimensional world —– we said to be co-existing next to 4^th dimension,

5^th dimension etc,  we might be living with the soul of people in the past. —– really ? ? ?

( I know something there —– but not necessary because of the String Theory —– even if

a fancy subatomic particle or antimatter was found and its trace was recorded in a digital

imaging screen,   how do I know the soul of my friend is there ? )

___/\___

non