>> Although they sensibly tend to focus on interpretation at the particle level, avoiding the hype and wishful mysticism that would tend to crop up around its implications for us as individuals.
>> Is this yet another one of those scientific facts that does not require a proof?
> Quantum mechanics is full of unintuitive, amazing effects, that get hyped by non-experts into imagined meanings. The latter isn't science.
Once again, you do not answer the question.
Are you asserting that your claim above is a fact? Yes/No
>> "science" claims to welcome criticism
> Science welcomes well thought out analytical or experimental challenges. Not criticism without merit, contrariness based in ignorance of the subject, ideological attacks, or simple negativity - all those just waste time.
> Think informed critique, not just any "criticism".
a) Please state unambiguously (Yes/No) whether you consider my criticism valid, or whether it falls into your "other" category.
b) Who decides what qualifies as valid, and is that done in a non-biased, non-ideological manner?
c) By what means did you come into possession of knowledge of the entirety of what all scientists do, and how they do it? (Here I am presuming that you consider scientists to be a part of science....and if you don't, I would then wonder how things like "Science welcomes" is implemented).
> Science only works to provide the best...
Please reveal the source of your omniscient knowledge. The supernatural is certainly allowed, but I've been led to believe that science folks "don't" believe in the supernatural.
> In stark contrast, Scriptures claim to be the stable truth without need for justification. Scriptures often frame "doubt" as undesirable, and their authority as above evidence. Unbelievers are often cast as morally compromised. Religions are rarely known for encouraging the discovery and sharing of contra-evidence, or the search for alternate and better viewpoints.
I'd say this is at least "mostly true".
> Very different.
True - but do you also know this much less famous part: they are also very similar, simultaneously.
> Not sure what the cake and eating it too is? Science for being hypocritical like religion? (Not my view, but trying to understand yours.)
Bullseye. Scientific ~believers/followers are indeed hypocritical, like religious people[1], and in many ways even above and beyond religious people (in that: if one has superior especially in specific ways scriptures, as science does imho, then violations of them are more egregious, in certain dimensions).
[1] I suppose I should reveal that the root cause is inheritance from People, though an ideology taking root in the mind is necessary to exploit its capabilities to their maximum.