I'm no fan of objectivism here, but really, so long as what someone does is generally legal and moral, what do their particular beliefs have to do with their ability to run a business? You may 'hate' someone for being 'a baby-killer' because they support abortion, but it doesn't mean they are suddenly unable to run a business - just that it's a business you may choose to not support (like many here feel about the MAFIAA).
The very simple difference is that science makes predictions that CAN BE TESTED and is falsifiable. No religion can do that. Claiming that people 'believing' in science, no matter how strongly, qualifies any science as 'a religion' is seriously moving the goalposts. So little children have the 'Santa religion'? What about 'Tooth-fairyism' and 'The Grand Church of the Easter Bunny'?
Arguments like these, while they do have some good philosophical elements, largely boil down to people who have issues with science trying to drag it down to the level of religion. Possibly there are philisophical issues with science, but in the end, it WORKS, and unlike religion generally, it self-corrects and advances. Not since the early days of Islam have I seen any religion trying to actually advance science and the knowledge of Man.
Yes science is only a tool, but it's a damn effective one, and for many of us it's infinitely better than authoritarian hand-me-downs from the Bronze Age.
You can't complain that science is no use because it's not perfect - that's the point of science. We learn, we add to it, and we develop new ideas and theories.
I've also noticed a lot of science-deniers fixate on "what ideology is needed for funding", conveniently ignoring that many of the 'anti-science' positions are equally well-funded, if not more so. Science funding is not some sinecure for life, where one has to just publish one thing and lay back in comfort (join the RIAA for that). Science requires justifying everything you do to people who also know the topic, and relies heavily on being published, which only happens reliably if you *convince* people of being correct. It's not logic games or appeals to authority like religious apologetics and debate often are. Unlike religion (or even philosophy), Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers, especially not 'right now'.
Gravity happens. Evolution happens. In this sense, they are factual statements of what happens about us. There are hypotheses and (scientfic) theories about these which need investigated, but it doesn't invalidate it. As they are different sciences, there are differences in the levels of these. Gravity is more observable than Evolution, but we probably have better theories (and more evidence of mechanisms) of Evolution.
Natural selection is just one element of evolution (see Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth"). Just because you can subdivide Evolution, and some bits are better understood than others, doesn't mean you can invalidate it as an incredibly powerful description of historical, current and future life any more than doubts about black holes invalidate the ability of an airplane to fly.
You really have an f***ed up system there. Why not take a leaf out of the NRA playbook and arm all doctors and nurses too, so they keep a steady supply of 'customers'? Maybe the medical industry is bankrolling the NRA?
While they're at it, they can keep pushing AGW denialism, so more extreme weather will harm more people too. I'm just surprised the Big Medicine conspiracy isn't pushing Romneycare so that more people can 'afford' their tender mercies?
AS usual, I am thankful for living in my 'socialist heaven' that is the Tory wasteland I inhabit.
At best it's the store owners suspecting that some people have crack in their pockets, but they have no way to be sure. Unless they have some legal duty to report anyone and everyone to the police on pure suspicion... they don't.
I'm pretty sure that anybody's motivation to spend money is because they have to, or it gives them something that they want. So what is wrong with something being free at the point of use (think OTA TV) but paying is possible for a 'better' experience (think HBO)?
Plenty of products are 'free' and do quite well - because they are selling or buying something else (such as your attention).
Yes, but red-light laws are there because two cars hitting each other at an intersection is a proven and predictable harm. In the case of planes and phones, there are apparently no logical predictions, and precious little evidence. It's like a municipality has super-long reds, because somewhere they heard that a Tin Lizzy couldn't get across in time somewhere else 70 years ago.