Sentrovasi

"If the story of Adam and Eve wasn't true and correct, then there wouldn't be any humans."

You have a very binary understanding of what is necessary for something to be true that is almost dogmatic.

The rules of chemistry need not be true and correct for formulas to succeed. People were doing correct things for the wrong reasons, even scientifically, for centuries, if not millennia. Think about things like surgeons not washing hands, inefficient gunpowder, bloodletting, or the attempts at a unified theory of Physics - we know that not everything is correct, yet the formulas don't fail at small enough scales/slow enough scales/within certain observational parameters.

You're right that science aims for truth, but that doesn't mean it can attain anything more than our closest approximation of the truth (limited by human perspectives and resources). We believe in it because it is what works, for now. And the beauty of this is that if one day some incontrovertible proof for a higher being does come up, we will recalibrate all our theories to account for it (presumably after very, very stringent checks.)

Now if your whole point is Science has done very many good things all around us, that is 100% true! But that says nothing about the truth value of Science, beyond that there is a lot of evidence of it working that one time (which is not what you seem to be claiming when you say it exists regardless of belief).

If all it takes to make science truth is to provide quotes of famous people calling it truth, then religion is probably truth a thousand times over.

A lot of the arguments and evidence you bring to the table are circular and only true from the reference point of whatever internal logic you've decided to assemble for yourself. Does this mean you're surrounded by Chinese shills? Probably not, but that is also apparently the truth you've decided to believe in, evidence be damned.

What people are trying to make you see is that epistemologically, absolute truth is a ridiculous bar that, if you set as the hurdle for science to meet, is only going to disappoint you time and again.

Scientific knowledge does not have any special status or truth value conferred on it beyond the very educated guesswork of scientists and the time and effort and money that goes into verification. It's an endeavour that relies entirely on empiricism and the flaws that come with having limited human perceptions.

Does this mean that science is exactly the same as religion when it comes to reliability? Of course not, because the things that you choose to believe in when you believe in science are different, more accurate and reproducible.

To claim that science has some ineffable attribute that puts it above any other belief, on the other hand, is discounting and discrediting the effort and very nature of scientific knowledge, and ascribing to it the kind of mystic quality that is exactly what makes religious knowledge so ridiculous.

I (charitably) think the fact is that they may also have misunderstood Cyberpunk to be more about hacking than it actually is, and are using "spy" despite a lot of CP2077 not being necessarily about remote hacking cameras at all.

I think the secret is scientific progress is like me on a deadline: 20 years is just so long away, you know? I'll get started tomorrow.

I believe you mean hypocrisy?

Vaping is banned in Singapore. You still see some people illegally possessing and vaping though.

I think the criticism is that they're repeatedly publishing these and claiming they're outliers without attempting to show how they got their results, from what I'm reading.

That was the prop money. I guess if they'd known he'd steal it, they would've used fake prop money instead.

I think the problem is this: the man was paid for his work. People don't seem to get that.

The deal was that he was paid an amount of money to make an art piece. That art piece was supposed to use another bunch of money as props. He was supposed to then give back the prop money after the exhibition was over.

When he made his work that used none of the money, that was fine. The museum rolled with it and gave him his dues. They didn't even ask for the prop money back when they realised he wasn't using it.

The problem is that he's now supposed to return the prop money that was to be used in the artwork, and he's refusing to.

He's already been paid, he's just being a shit to an organisation offering a public service.

The part about sheriffs scares me as someone not well-versed in American affairs because I read previously that some sheriffs don't believe that federal laws should apply to them and that could be good, I guess? But could also be really bad.

I think the point they are trying to make is that in this situation, the perpetrator would have said she tripped and stabbed her with a knife if she didn't have access to a gun. It's not a gun issue, this person just genuinely wanted to murder a child that got on her nerves.

I genuinely had students believe that what ChatGPT was feeding them was fact and try to source it in a paper. I stamped out that notion as quick as I could.