That's sometimes true in practice - scientists are human too. But a scientific theory is generally accepted as the best explanation we currently have, and the excitement aroused by the possibility of a new discovery overturning an existing theory contradicts the idea that it's a belief.
So that siilly equivocation
raises its moldy snout yet again.
Was there something about its cousin "faith" too?
That's another perennial fav for trying to
disparage science.
Displaying first their incomprehension of
anything about science then belittling the
noble nature of Faith they show they
know nothing of either.
A person would think someone who centers his life
around religious faith / belief would
some day
thInk long and deep enough to notice something
as obvious as that there's a huge, qualitative
difference between believing that the
car will start, and belief in salvation.
Back to the actual topic of the thread, proof of theory,
we'd suggest that our friends who are so confused
should first figure out the meaning of faith / belief
in their lives, then go on to the small effort needed to
learn what a scientific theory is.
THEN, they might be up to the task of sensible
discussion of proof / disproof/ falsification, rather than
displaying shallowness and ignorance
with inane quips .
