#matt emerson

[incorrectshea]

Cas: C'mon, I wasn't THAT drunk last night.

Piper: You were flirting with Matt.

Cas: So? He's my boyfriend.

Tate: You asked if he was single, then started crying when he said he wasn't.

[incorrectshea]

Tatum: Cas is very pretty.

Matt: [ nonchalantly but unconvincingly ] Is he?

Tatum: You know he is, darling. Be careful there.

[incorrectshea]

Cas: Sharp work, samurai.

Matt: Holy shit I'm gay

Cas: What

Matt: What

Tatum: Oh my fucking god

[incorrectshea]

Cas: You're a dick.

Matt: Well, you are what you eat ;)

Cas:

Cas: Ok, I'm glad you're getting more comfortable with yourself and your identity but shut the fuck up I'm trying to be mad at you.

[fohxolecourt]

cas: piper i need to ask you something

piper: [reading a book] about what

cas: matt

piper: suck his dick

[startswithabang]

Science is not faith-based, no matter what the Wall Street Journal says

"We may have had faith that Einstein’s predictions, and the existence of gravitational waves, would turn out to be correct, and that LIGO would make the greatest scientific discovery of the 21st century so far. But if it hadn’t been true — if advanced LIGO had reached design sensitivity and seen nothing for years, or if it had seen something that conflicted with Einstein’s theory — that faith would be instantaneously discarded, and replaced by something even better: a quest to discover how to extend and supersede Einstein’s greatest accomplishment to account for the new evidence."

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Matt Emerson asserts that science is faith-based, since scientists believe that the predictions of their theories will be borne out. It’s true that faith, by definition, is the belief in an outcome for which we cannot be certain. Indeed, we could not have been certain that LIGO would have found gravitational waves, nor that Einstein’s predictions for their properties would have been correct. But the claim that science is faith-based not only misunderstands the nature of science and the scientific process, but ignores the facts that scientific “beliefs” are based in the full suite of evidence available, and that as more and better evidence becomes available, those beliefs change accordingly. The true separator of science from faith is how far you’re willing to test your most deeply held beliefs, and whether you’ll change your conclusions when the evidence compels you to do so.