Or as JK Rowling put it, "Yes, this is all happening in your head. But does that mean it isn't real?"
The computer you are sitting at started as an idea in someone's head. The point at which you could say that the idea had "real" "existence" (quotes used to indicate that these terms cry out for definition) is as fuzzy and arguable as the point where a zygote (fertilised ovum) becomes a human being. And as that simile shows, it's not a neutral question: people have ideological reasons for arguing one definition against another.Dangerous example for a scientist. A headache is subjective: it may have detectable physical causes, but the pain itself cannot be measured with any instrument except the sufferer's mind. (A "dolorometer" that could measure pain as objectively as a theromometer measures fever is something medical research would be devoted to, if only they had the slightest clue where to start.) Therefore, your belief that paracetamol cures your headache is subjectively based, and the "scientific proof" is only that a lot of other people have been found to share your subjective experience. Yes, more people have their headaches cured by paracetamol than by placebos, but only statistically: placebos still have a pretty good success rate. There are million-dollar patent medicines based entirely on that fact.Should we judge those who believe, based on the fact that they can not produce evidence?
<snip>
I'm afraid I am a scientist at heart. I know that paracetemol gets rid of my headache so I believe in it. I've experienced it and have scientific proof to back it up.
I've touched and been taught by mine, but I don't call that proof. It changed my life, but so does falling in love, and you can't get more subjective than that.In my childhood, I went to church many times and even prayed to god, I have never seen God
I often think that the wisest prophet was Vonegut's Bokonnon, who said "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."