Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Notice phrases like "between" (indicating a relationship in two quanitities) "conflict" "warfare" "relation between the two."

So, here we have one source clearly demonstrating that science is NOT a religion.

You still don't understand the point of the OP. no one is saying the pure act of studying natural and physical empirical observation is religion, but it is those who adhere to the dogmatic doctrine and disallow the honest questioning who have establish a faith-based system and excommunicate anyone who defies. It's constantly demonstrated throughout this thread! People have called me scientifically illiterate solely for the fact that I'm pointing out these weaknesses in the scientific community - that is, their inability to reconsider old theories based on new evidence and the blind zealousness with which they dismiss such empirical evidence.

It's quite simple, cooperton. If you think science is wrong, then it is up to you to prove it. Demonstrate an instance where science has given us an erroneous answer and failed to correct itself.

Hubble finds universe may be expanding faster than expected - Phys.org No one has yet altered the agreed age of the Universe based upon these new findings. Science hasn't corrected itself yet.

Or, if you prefer, I have seen biological scientists ridicule the Genesis account of biological life occurring before there were stars. Yet these same scientists also know of biological organisms living in thermal vents with no exposure to light and they also know that conditions may have existed where sufficient warmth and chemistry were available and accumulated, prior to stellar ignition. I'm not saying that they are wrong, just saying their ridicule is unfounded (This attitude also prevents them from actually looking to see if such is possible).

So, two instances should be sufficient.

So...science was wrong, but not really.

Only wrong for very small values of wrong, eh?

Like being slightly dead, I suppose.

Please re-read, I've added some cases.

Well, I'm not going to change your mind even if I answer every question you throw at me. But calling science a religion is pretty left field. There is a vast difference between scientism and science. Apparently scientism is a thing but no one in their right mind worships science, the very thing that keeps handing us pictures of how alone we are in the universe. you might as well worship a golden calf. At least gold buys happiness. Or a months supply of chicken wings and rum, basically the same thing.

a reply to: chr0naut

Now now.

You should know by now . . . they can't well handle being confused by facts.

It jangles their RELIGIOUS DOGMA far too much for them to tolerate it.

a reply to: chr0naut

Maybe they were hoping for only slightly pregnant?

originally posted by: TzarChasmThere is a vast difference between scientism and [authentic] science. Apparently scientism is a thing but no one in their right mind worships it. You might as well worship a golden calf.

My, My!

How nice of you to state our points so well. That's been our point and perspective all along!

We haven't said that the Religion of Scientism acolytes and high priests were "in their right minds."

Not by a long shot.

We've insisted all along that they lacked integrity; were corrupt, shysters, power-mongers, greedy, ego driven, building their own kingdoms regardless of facts etc. etc.

I don't think we've ever considered that collection of characters really "in their right minds."

And, yes, we agree, worshiping a corrupt stinking pile of horse biscuits and pretending that's honorable, authentic science is truly about as worthwhile as worshiping a Babylonian golden calf. Actually, the Babylonian worshipers are likely the ones fostering so much of the hogwash in the name of science but that's a whole 'nother issue.

LOL.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Ladies and gentlemen, the rambling has reached code turquoise, I repeat code turquoise!!

a reply to: GetHyped

How kind of you to notice.

Are you also aware that . . .

the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain?

and that

wet birds fly at night?

You sure seem to focus a lot on such so you MUST be aware of such scientific facts.

a reply to: BO XIAN

But you are making the mistake of lumping authentic science in with scientism.

a reply to: TzarChasm

NOT AT ALL!

That would be Y'ALL'S habit!

We've made a distinction from early on.

It has appeared that y'all's DENIAL has colored your perceptions soooooooooo wholesale that you were not able to even minimally perceive our distinction regarding the difference, much less GROK it.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Notice phrases like "between" (indicating a relationship in two quanitities) "conflict" "warfare" "relation between the two."

So, here we have one source clearly demonstrating that science is NOT a religion.

You still don't understand the point of the OP. no one is saying the pure act of studying natural and physical empirical observation is religion, but it is those who adhere to the dogmatic doctrine and disallow the honest questioning who have establish a faith-based system and excommunicate anyone who defies. It's constantly demonstrated throughout this thread! People have called me scientifically illiterate solely for the fact that I'm pointing out these weaknesses in the scientific community - that is, their inability to reconsider old theories based on new evidence and the blind zealousness with which they dismiss such empirical evidence.

It's quite simple, cooperton. If you think science is wrong, then it is up to you to prove it. Demonstrate an instance where science has given us an erroneous answer and failed to correct itself.

Hubble finds universe may be expanding faster than expected - Phys.org No one has yet altered the agreed age of the Universe based upon these new findings. Science hasn't corrected itself yet.

Or, if you prefer, I have seen biological scientists ridicule the Genesis account of biological life occurring before there were stars. Yet these same scientists also know of biological organisms living in thermal vents with no exposure to light and they also know that conditions may have existed where sufficient warmth and chemistry were available and accumulated, prior to stellar ignition. I'm not saying that they are wrong, just saying their ridicule is unfounded (This attitude also prevents them from actually looking to see if such is possible).

So, two instances should be sufficient.

So...science was wrong, but not really.

Only wrong for very small values of wrong, eh?

Like being slightly dead, I suppose.

Please re-read, I've added some cases.

Well, I'm not going to change your mind even if I answer every question you throw at me. But calling science a religion is pretty left field. There is a vast difference between scientism and science. Apparently scientism is a thing but no one in their right mind worships science, the very thing that keeps handing us pictures of how alone we are in the universe. you might as well worship a golden calf. At least gold buys happiness. Or a months supply of chicken wings and rum, basically the same thing.

Just getting started:

Or, the case of the farmed Salmon that seem to have genetically adapted to the overcrowding conditions of farming in a single generation (the changes are obviously epigenetc) but using evolutionary models, how does a genetic change (mutation?) get into the population that fast? Can you perhaps describe how such epigenetic changes may arise through evolutionary mechanisms? A single generation of domestication heritably alters the expression of hundreds of genes - Nature.com

Or, the cases of co-evolutionary stuff like for example the defense mechanisms of some Nudibranches - Wikipedia, which eats stinging anenomes and then re-uses the anenomes stinging mechanism, the spines, re loading them into portals in their body so that they are armed with the stings extracted from their food. It is really hard to formulate the evolutionary processes in any acceptable time-frames that could lead to this deep a co-dependence across species, arising. (sorry for the ugly construction of the previous sentence, I hope you catch my meaning from it.)

Or issues with the efficiency of photosynthesis. The path of the energy flow to the receptor within the plant cells should be random and therefore inefficient but it appears to ALWAYS follow the optimal path. Quantum efficiency of photosynthetic energy conversion - paper on PNAS

There's also this page, List of unsolved problems in chemistry on Wikipedia, that speaks for itself.

Science does NOT represent absolute truth nor is it constrained to self-correct.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: GetHyped

How kind of you to notice.

Are you also aware that . . .

the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain?

and that

wet birds fly at night?

You sure seem to focus a lot on such so you MUST be aware of such scientific facts.

So it rains at night in Spain?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Notice phrases like "between" (indicating a relationship in two quanitities) "conflict" "warfare" "relation between the two."

So, here we have one source clearly demonstrating that science is NOT a religion.

You still don't understand the point of the OP. no one is saying the pure act of studying natural and physical empirical observation is religion, but it is those who adhere to the dogmatic doctrine and disallow the honest questioning who have establish a faith-based system and excommunicate anyone who defies. It's constantly demonstrated throughout this thread! People have called me scientifically illiterate solely for the fact that I'm pointing out these weaknesses in the scientific community - that is, their inability to reconsider old theories based on new evidence and the blind zealousness with which they dismiss such empirical evidence.

It's quite simple, cooperton. If you think science is wrong, then it is up to you to prove it. Demonstrate an instance where science has given us an erroneous answer and failed to correct itself.

Hubble finds universe may be expanding faster than expected - Phys.org No one has yet altered the agreed age of the Universe based upon these new findings. Science hasn't corrected itself yet.

Or, if you prefer, I have seen biological scientists ridicule the Genesis account of biological life occurring before there were stars. Yet these same scientists also know of biological organisms living in thermal vents with no exposure to light and they also know that conditions may have existed where sufficient warmth and chemistry were available and accumulated, prior to stellar ignition. I'm not saying that they are wrong, just saying their ridicule is unfounded (This attitude also prevents them from actually looking to see if such is possible).

So, two instances should be sufficient.

So...science was wrong, but not really.

Only wrong for very small values of wrong, eh?

Like being slightly dead, I suppose.

Please re-read, I've added some cases.

Well, I'm not going to change your mind even if I answer every question you throw at me. But calling science a religion is pretty left field. There is a vast difference between scientism and science. Apparently scientism is a thing but no one in their right mind worships science, the very thing that keeps handing us pictures of how alone we are in the universe. you might as well worship a golden calf. At least gold buys happiness. Or a months supply of chicken wings and rum, basically the same thing.

Just getting started:

Or, the case of the farmed Salmon that seem to have genetically adapted to the overcrowding conditions of farming in a single generation (the changes are obviously epigenetc) but using evolutionary models, how does a genetic change (mutation?) get into the population that fast? Can you perhaps describe how such epigenetic changes may arise through evolutionary mechanisms? A single generation of domestication heritably alters the expression of hundreds of genes - Nature.com

Or, the cases of co-evolutionary stuff like for example the defense mechanisms of some Nudibranches - Wikipedia, which eats stinging anenomes and then re-uses the anenomes stinging mechanism, the spines, re loading them into portals in their body so that they are armed with the stings extracted from their food. It is really hard to formulate the evolutionary processes in any acceptable time-frames that could lead to this deep a co-dependence across species, arising. (sorry for the ugly construction of the previous sentence, I hope you catch my meaning from it.)

Or issues with the efficiency of photosynthesis. The path of the energy flow to the receptor within the plant cells should be random and therefore inefficient but it appears to ALWAYS follow the optimal path. Quantum efficiency of photosynthetic energy conversion - paper on PNAS

There's also this page, List of unsolved problems in chemistry on Wikipedia, that speaks for itself.

Science does NOT represent absolute truth nor is it constrained to self-correct.

Why don't you apply the scientific method to those mysteries and get back to us? Science doesn't apply itself you know. Be sure to submit your results to a committee for approval so it gets the publicity it deserves.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Notice phrases like "between" (indicating a relationship in two quanitities) "conflict" "warfare" "relation between the two."

So, here we have one source clearly demonstrating that science is NOT a religion.

You still don't understand the point of the OP. no one is saying the pure act of studying natural and physical empirical observation is religion, but it is those who adhere to the dogmatic doctrine and disallow the honest questioning who have establish a faith-based system and excommunicate anyone who defies. It's constantly demonstrated throughout this thread! People have called me scientifically illiterate solely for the fact that I'm pointing out these weaknesses in the scientific community - that is, their inability to reconsider old theories based on new evidence and the blind zealousness with which they dismiss such empirical evidence.

It's quite simple, cooperton. If you think science is wrong, then it is up to you to prove it. Demonstrate an instance where science has given us an erroneous answer and failed to correct itself.

Hubble finds universe may be expanding faster than expected - Phys.org No one has yet altered the agreed age of the Universe based upon these new findings. Science hasn't corrected itself yet.

Or, if you prefer, I have seen biological scientists ridicule the Genesis account of biological life occurring before there were stars. Yet these same scientists also know of biological organisms living in thermal vents with no exposure to light and they also know that conditions may have existed where sufficient warmth and chemistry were available and accumulated, prior to stellar ignition. I'm not saying that they are wrong, just saying their ridicule is unfounded (This attitude also prevents them from actually looking to see if such is possible).

So, two instances should be sufficient.

So...science was wrong, but not really.

Only wrong for very small values of wrong, eh?

Like being slightly dead, I suppose.

Please re-read, I've added some cases.

Well, I'm not going to change your mind even if I answer every question you throw at me. But calling science a religion is pretty left field. There is a vast difference between scientism and science. Apparently scientism is a thing but no one in their right mind worships science, the very thing that keeps handing us pictures of how alone we are in the universe. you might as well worship a golden calf. At least gold buys happiness. Or a months supply of chicken wings and rum, basically the same thing.

Just getting started:

Or, the case of the farmed Salmon that seem to have genetically adapted to the overcrowding conditions of farming in a single generation (the changes are obviously epigenetc) but using evolutionary models, how does a genetic change (mutation?) get into the population that fast? Can you perhaps describe how such epigenetic changes may arise through evolutionary mechanisms? A single generation of domestication heritably alters the expression of hundreds of genes - Nature.com

Or, the cases of co-evolutionary stuff like for example the defense mechanisms of some Nudibranches - Wikipedia, which eats stinging anenomes and then re-uses the anenomes stinging mechanism, the spines, re loading them into portals in their body so that they are armed with the stings extracted from their food. It is really hard to formulate the evolutionary processes in any acceptable time-frames that could lead to this deep a co-dependence across species, arising. (sorry for the ugly construction of the previous sentence, I hope you catch my meaning from it.)

Or issues with the efficiency of photosynthesis. The path of the energy flow to the receptor within the plant cells should be random and therefore inefficient but it appears to ALWAYS follow the optimal path. Quantum efficiency of photosynthetic energy conversion - paper on PNAS

There's also this page, List of unsolved problems in chemistry on Wikipedia, that speaks for itself.

Science does NOT represent absolute truth nor is it constrained to self-correct.

Why don't you apply the scientific method to those mysteries and get back to us? Science doesn't apply itself you know. Be sure to submit your results to a committee for approval so it gets the publicity it deserves.

All references supplied already have sufficient scientific pedigree and public exposure.

Are you suggesting that I should get it blessed by the Science Pope or his Ecclesia?

Thank you for bringing up that thought. I just imagined Richard Dawkins with a tonsure. I LOL'd so hard my coffee nearly came out of my nose.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Notice phrases like "between" (indicating a relationship in two quanitities) "conflict" "warfare" "relation between the two."

So, here we have one source clearly demonstrating that science is NOT a religion.

You still don't understand the point of the OP. no one is saying the pure act of studying natural and physical empirical observation is religion, but it is those who adhere to the dogmatic doctrine and disallow the honest questioning who have establish a faith-based system and excommunicate anyone who defies. It's constantly demonstrated throughout this thread! People have called me scientifically illiterate solely for the fact that I'm pointing out these weaknesses in the scientific community - that is, their inability to reconsider old theories based on new evidence and the blind zealousness with which they dismiss such empirical evidence.

It's quite simple, cooperton. If you think science is wrong, then it is up to you to prove it. Demonstrate an instance where science has given us an erroneous answer and failed to correct itself.

Hubble finds universe may be expanding faster than expected - Phys.org No one has yet altered the agreed age of the Universe based upon these new findings. Science hasn't corrected itself yet.

Or, if you prefer, I have seen biological scientists ridicule the Genesis account of biological life occurring before there were stars. Yet these same scientists also know of biological organisms living in thermal vents with no exposure to light and they also know that conditions may have existed where sufficient warmth and chemistry were available and accumulated, prior to stellar ignition. I'm not saying that they are wrong, just saying their ridicule is unfounded (This attitude also prevents them from actually looking to see if such is possible).

So, two instances should be sufficient.

So...science was wrong, but not really.

Only wrong for very small values of wrong, eh?

Like being slightly dead, I suppose.

Please re-read, I've added some cases.

Well, I'm not going to change your mind even if I answer every question you throw at me. But calling science a religion is pretty left field. There is a vast difference between scientism and science. Apparently scientism is a thing but no one in their right mind worships science, the very thing that keeps handing us pictures of how alone we are in the universe. you might as well worship a golden calf. At least gold buys happiness. Or a months supply of chicken wings and rum, basically the same thing.

Just getting started:

Or, the case of the farmed Salmon that seem to have genetically adapted to the overcrowding conditions of farming in a single generation (the changes are obviously epigenetc) but using evolutionary models, how does a genetic change (mutation?) get into the population that fast? Can you perhaps describe how such epigenetic changes may arise through evolutionary mechanisms? A single generation of domestication heritably alters the expression of hundreds of genes - Nature.com

Or, the cases of co-evolutionary stuff like for example the defense mechanisms of some Nudibranches - Wikipedia, which eats stinging anenomes and then re-uses the anenomes stinging mechanism, the spines, re loading them into portals in their body so that they are armed with the stings extracted from their food. It is really hard to formulate the evolutionary processes in any acceptable time-frames that could lead to this deep a co-dependence across species, arising. (sorry for the ugly construction of the previous sentence, I hope you catch my meaning from it.)

Or issues with the efficiency of photosynthesis. The path of the energy flow to the receptor within the plant cells should be random and therefore inefficient but it appears to ALWAYS follow the optimal path. Quantum efficiency of photosynthetic energy conversion - paper on PNAS

There's also this page, List of unsolved problems in chemistry on Wikipedia, that speaks for itself.

Science does NOT represent absolute truth nor is it constrained to self-correct.

Why don't you apply the scientific method to those mysteries and get back to us? Science doesn't apply itself you know. Be sure to submit your results to a committee for approval so it gets the publicity it deserves.

All references supplied already have sufficient scientific pedigree and public exposure.

Are you suggesting that I should get it blessed by the Science Pope or his Ecclesia?

I'm suggesting you find your own answers, but be sure to collect sufficient data before expecting anyone to stake their credibility on your work.

a reply to: Indigo5

Okay - just making sure I was understanding you. Thanks for clarifying

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Why don't you apply the scientific method to those mysteries and get back to us? Science doesn't apply itself you know. Be sure to submit your results to a committee for approval so it gets the publicity it deserves.

But journals refuse to publish anything that even mentions the impossibility of various mechanisms of evolution. It is taboo to even consider that evolution might be wrong - which is the main example of why scientism has gotten out of hand.

Here is a good article if you can keep your cool and understand other perspectives:
blog.drwile.com...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Notice phrases like "between" (indicating a relationship in two quanitities) "conflict" "warfare" "relation between the two."

So, here we have one source clearly demonstrating that science is NOT a religion.

You still don't understand the point of the OP. no one is saying the pure act of studying natural and physical empirical observation is religion, but it is those who adhere to the dogmatic doctrine and disallow the honest questioning who have establish a faith-based system and excommunicate anyone who defies. It's constantly demonstrated throughout this thread! People have called me scientifically illiterate solely for the fact that I'm pointing out these weaknesses in the scientific community - that is, their inability to reconsider old theories based on new evidence and the blind zealousness with which they dismiss such empirical evidence.

It's quite simple, cooperton. If you think science is wrong, then it is up to you to prove it. Demonstrate an instance where science has given us an erroneous answer and failed to correct itself.

Hubble finds universe may be expanding faster than expected - Phys.org No one has yet altered the agreed age of the Universe based upon these new findings. Science hasn't corrected itself yet.

Or, if you prefer, I have seen biological scientists ridicule the Genesis account of biological life occurring before there were stars. Yet these same scientists also know of biological organisms living in thermal vents with no exposure to light and they also know that conditions may have existed where sufficient warmth and chemistry were available and accumulated, prior to stellar ignition. I'm not saying that they are wrong, just saying their ridicule is unfounded (This attitude also prevents them from actually looking to see if such is possible).

So, two instances should be sufficient.

So...science was wrong, but not really.

Only wrong for very small values of wrong, eh?

Like being slightly dead, I suppose.

Please re-read, I've added some cases.

Well, I'm not going to change your mind even if I answer every question you throw at me. But calling science a religion is pretty left field. There is a vast difference between scientism and science. Apparently scientism is a thing but no one in their right mind worships science, the very thing that keeps handing us pictures of how alone we are in the universe. you might as well worship a golden calf. At least gold buys happiness. Or a months supply of chicken wings and rum, basically the same thing.

Just getting started:

Or, the case of the farmed Salmon that seem to have genetically adapted to the overcrowding conditions of farming in a single generation (the changes are obviously epigenetc) but using evolutionary models, how does a genetic change (mutation?) get into the population that fast? Can you perhaps describe how such epigenetic changes may arise through evolutionary mechanisms? A single generation of domestication heritably alters the expression of hundreds of genes - Nature.com

Or, the cases of co-evolutionary stuff like for example the defense mechanisms of some Nudibranches - Wikipedia, which eats stinging anenomes and then re-uses the anenomes stinging mechanism, the spines, re loading them into portals in their body so that they are armed with the stings extracted from their food. It is really hard to formulate the evolutionary processes in any acceptable time-frames that could lead to this deep a co-dependence across species, arising. (sorry for the ugly construction of the previous sentence, I hope you catch my meaning from it.)

Or issues with the efficiency of photosynthesis. The path of the energy flow to the receptor within the plant cells should be random and therefore inefficient but it appears to ALWAYS follow the optimal path. Quantum efficiency of photosynthetic energy conversion - paper on PNAS

There's also this page, List of unsolved problems in chemistry on Wikipedia, that speaks for itself.

Science does NOT represent absolute truth nor is it constrained to self-correct.

Why don't you apply the scientific method to those mysteries and get back to us? Science doesn't apply itself you know. Be sure to submit your results to a committee for approval so it gets the publicity it deserves.

All references supplied already have sufficient scientific pedigree and public exposure.

Are you suggesting that I should get it blessed by the Science Pope or his Ecclesia?

I'm suggesting you find your own answers, but be sure to collect sufficient data before expecting anyone to stake their credibility on your work.

I already have my own answers that satisfy me; some conform to science, some to faith, most to both.

But since you seem to have forgotten, I was responding to your request that someone: "Demonstrate an instance where science has given us an erroneous answer and failed to correct itself".

I have done so, with many instances and ALL of them adequately scientifically credentialed.

Rebuttal proven - Science DOES give erroneous answers and is NOT constrained to self-correct.

Perhaps your deflection from the topic at hand (asking me to re-verify existing science) is not because you have the memory span of a goldfish but because you do not want to face that you actually follow science 'religiously', in a faith-like manner and that your faith in science is ultimately, unfounded?

a reply to: chr0naut

No, you haven't provided any such examples, only details you personally find puzzling. But your confusion is not a matter of scientific inquiry. You can put your bait back in the tackle box.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Keep fighting the good fight TzarChasm, even though at times it may feel as though you are showing card tricks to a dog...

a reply to: cooperton

It's moderately fascinating to me how . . . tardy . . . the bulk of the Religion of Scientism (ROS) acolytes and high priests are still about the transitioning from Darwinianism to . . . essentially panspermianism.

Those with bright minds and some courage to think askew from the ROS dogma have begun the last decade or 2 to realize that the facts (e.g. massive complexity of design) just do not support Darwinianism any longer.

The bulk of the rank and file are still stuck in the muck of Darwin's doing. They have failed to pick-up on the early stages of the massive transition.

Certainly they can't tolerate anything close to the idea of Creationism.

So, all that's left is the purported ET implementation of panspermianism throughout the multi-verse.

They won't realize the hollowness of that until after the dust settles after Armageddon.

Interesting times, for sure.

a reply to: chr0naut

INDEED.

Your courageous stands for the truth and sanity are very impressive, to me.

THX THX.

I think that the seeming display of memories of a gold fish are primarily yet another demonstration of the perverseness of the ROScientism. They can't conceive of much outside of the APPROVED DOGMA. They HAVE to keep hitting their pointed nogggins against the concrete walls of Truth because they can't tolerate thoughts of having to yield to any truths that might require an adjustment in their life choices.