A tumbling companion to my site.
Have a question? Just prostrate it.
Anonymous asked: I saw your response regarding faith. I am a scientist too. The difference is that while science may accept unproven ideas, it doesn't accept ideas unless they are subject to proof. The value of the force of gravity on Mars may not have been tested at some time in the past, but since we can send robots there it's been directly tested. Faith really isn't a part of science because of the requirements of falsifiability and rejection of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Agreed.
[ask] [0 notes]
Finally saw the McQueen exhibit at the Metropolitan.
Woke up early on a weekend. Got there as soon as they opened the doors, and rushed into the cathedral erected for this man’s vision.
Much of it quite stirring, but i couldn’t shake a melancholy that hung from the walls and permeated the air.
It is a shame he is no longer among us.
(Source: elfrenlucero, via kellymckuntqueen)
[37 notes]
Ahhhhh….Bluebery Muffin. Where have you been? It’s been awhile. You seem to have developed…uh…an edge.
I like.
(via thepinupgal)
[28 notes]
Anonymous asked: I saw your comments about religion. As a scientist I've come to the conclusion that religion is bad per se because it teaches people to take things on faith. This makes people subject to accepting all sorts of beliefs without applying skeptical analysis.
What we don't need is a planet full of people open to manipulation by anyone who can lie well.
Thank you for your comment.
“Faith” - It’s a fine line to tread when the faith expressed isn’t for an idea or belief we ourselves have. It’s still essentially the same thing, whether it is asking us to believe the theorized strength of gravity on Mars or whether you’re asking us to believe that your god came from a mountain in a distant land we’ll never visit. All of it presupposes that we accept certain “truths” that cannot be physically experienced.
Faith isn’t the problem with religion (or science). It’s how people use this mechanism to force down your throat complete value dichotomies absent of any empirical proof or - worse - loaded with ignorant judgments.