Originally Posted by
PTravel
The question isn't what motivates scientists, but proselytizing is rude. If you're familiar with the scientific method then you know that, irrespective of a scientist's motivations, all that counts is methodology and whether results are verifiable and repeatable.
I find proselytizing particularly obnoxious for the reasons that I stated, and I don't think it's inherent in the human character to do so. I think that the adherents of those religions most inclined to engage in proselytizing do so, not out of any true sense of altruism, but because they believe they have a divine mandate, and that kind of religious imperialism is not only offensive, it's actually dangerous, as history as proven repeatedly.
I agree with the first statement. The second statement I would disagree with partially, I agree it's rude, that's why I personally abstain. I was just suggesting that its good for human relations to chill a little when someone gets up in your grill.
I was thinking your initial reaction was a question of terminology. Let me be clear, when I say something is a "non-falsifiable hypothesis" a hypothesis is a truth statement. It is a statement that there exists evidence that will prove the hypothesis true. The contrapositive must also be true, that there must also exist evidence that will prove the statement false. A statement is non-falsifiable when there is no evidence that will prove the contrapositive.
Creationism is a good example, creationists only consider evidence that will support their hypothesis that God snapped his fingers and created everything instantaneously. They will abandon specific theories and arguments when confronted with proof, but the central theory cannot be falsified, thus the hypothesis of creationism is non-falsifiable. This is how you separate logic from rhetoric. And yes, me and my pastor get into all manner of spirited debates on this issue.