Science for all

The one who has spoken more is the one who does not know and not have arguments. That one uses to say "it is like that" while should say "I think it's like that". You must say "it is like that" if you have consistent and well based data. For us, researchers, it is difficult to assert so. Sometimes we prefer to say, even with good data, that "they just suggest that".

Well, this colleague's speech represents what the scientific community wants to say about "religion commanding our lives", not only about homosexual beings.
Our society needs data and does not subjective arguments, because we're not an individual thinking, we are a population who needs a sampling which represent it.

Rational beings?

In this early involvement with environmental issues, I have reflected a lot about environmental policies and mindset of society in general on environment. Perhaps it would be better to say: reflection on the natural pathway of human thinking. How not thinking and then not imposing a structure on the basis of environmental preservation and conservation since the beginning of human interference? Is that the price of the feature "rationality"? Is calling human beings "rational" coherent with life?