Imbak para sa Nobyembre, 2011

Are homosexuals oppressed in Philippine society? And is the RH bill a front for their agenda?

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , , on Nobyembre 25, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

A couple of days ago I came across an article linking the RH Bill with a quote “agenda to forward homosexuality”. Needless to say this made me raise an eyebrow because I read through the thing and even posted the latest version I could find somewhere on here in an earlier post and in nowhere in any of those pages did I find anything pertaining even remotely on homosexuality.

So I checked for the source and found the original (or the one closest to it as far as I can tell) in http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=5005. And after reading through it I can safely say its the most paranoid, unfounded pieces of narcotic induced dribble that ever found its way on the internet. The line of thinking that came into this speech can go on par with the 9/11 truthers who insist that the US government was behind the attacks on the Twin towers, or the people who believe a secret organization is working behind the scenes to bring about a New World Order.

In fact all the points made  were so delusionary that it reminds me of a guy that practically screamed the scrapping of the RH Bill because “it violates our constitutional rights” when every single one of the provisions he was against was already discarded many moths before he made his proclamation. https://sigarilyosadilim.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/rod-you-are-a-moron/

Okay a little background; the article was written based on a presentation by Dr. Ligaya Anacta Acosta regional director of Human Life International (HLI) Asia and Oceania. She worked for the DOH for 28 years, A Doctorate in Management, and Bachelor Degrees in Law and Social Work.

First she tackled the question of “are homosexuals really oppressed?”

“Are they really oppressed? We see many gays in the media… in fact, they lord it over [in the industry] so how can they say that they are being oppressed?”

Ok, I know there are a lot of gays in the media but lording over it is a bit of a stretch if we’re talking about statistics.

We need to stress that what Dr. Acosta probably means by media is entertainment, because I’m hard put to find any easily identifiable character who is openly homosexual on the grid of news or journalism. Which spans the regions of television, radio, and print. The only exception I can think off the top of my head would be Boy Abunda and even he would stretching it because he’s classified in entertainment as well.

Filipino entertainment thrives on three things: (1) romantic movies, soap operas and dramas (which, unless I’m very mistaken, is unsuitable for homosexual performers); (2) Noon time variety shows; and (3) Talk shows. Even in the last two categories homosexual personalities are scant and easily outnumbered by their straight peers. The only way gays have ever made it into the entertainment industry is through comedy and only through comedy (the only exceptions being Aiza Seguerra and Boy Abunda).

(Note: In this vein I’ve limited the discussion to tv personalities or persons easily recognizable. I have not included individuals who, though in the entertainment industry, work behind the scenes such as directors, cameramen, producers etc.)

Though all may agree that homosexuals are a colorful (and very loud) presence in entertainment (not media), the statement lording it over even there is a bit hard to swallow…statistically. However, the point stands, so what? There are gays in the media (entertainment). Does that automatically conclude for all arguments that no anti-gay sentiments exist in the Philippines? Of course not.

“But we have to understand that this is actually a Marxist mold to cast the homosexual revolution, which started as early as 1948,”

“A man named Harry Hay thought of the idea of a homosexual activist group, later formulating the principles that would give rise to the US-based group “Mattachine Society” as the first members would call it. The principles revolved around the concept “that homosexuals were a virtual minority oppressed by the dominant heterosexual majority, and that portraying them as oppressed is actually the key to selling the homosexual movement,”

(I really have no interest in Harry Hay since his ideologies and movements have little effect on societies half way around the globe years after his death and four decades after his society shut itself down). But here Acosta has a point, just because you’re the minority doesn’t mean you’re oppressed.

Since the current American president Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States has made strides in the advancement of anti-life, anti-family legislation, including recognition of same-sex unions and discrimination against people who refuse to recognize such unions. Being true to the pro-abortion, pro-gay rights monicker given to him, the president has established an LGBT Month (LGBT stands for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders), appointed homosexuals as key officials in government, and carried out other measures that have ended up bestowing illegitimate rights on homosexual members of society.

Illegitimate rights? What, are they allowed to murder people now? What is she talking about? Surely not marriage because that’s hardly illegitimate at all.

“Sasabihin siguro ng iba, sa US lang ‘yan,”

“Hindi lang po ‘yan sa US because the policies of the United States of America affect the whole world… It’s actually also part of population control. If they cannot force us to legalize abortion or massively use contraception, then [they] promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. Start at kindergarten… and therefore we have to know what is the agenda.”

Really? Promoting homosexuality in kindergarten? I can’t speak for myself but there might be a lot of schools that would consider that slander.

“Not too many people know that the RH bill also encourages homosexuality,”

I definitely didn’t. But we’re finally getting to it. Let’s see how a bill written for health could possibly forward some sort of agenda for homosexuality.

“Section 2, the Declaration of Policy, states that “The State recognizes and guarantees the exercise of universal basic human rights to reproductive health by all persons.”

Don’t see a problem with that.

“And then it says, ‘There shall be no discrimination against any person on the grounds’ “among others” ‘…of sexual orientation.’ You have to understand the doublespeak here. And of course, it refers to homosexuality\,”

No discrimination? Sounds reasonable enough. Don’t see a problem here either.

“It also says here, ‘The State guarantee to eradicate discriminatory practices, laws and policies that infringe on the person’s exercise of reproductive health rights.”

Eradicating discriminatory practices? That sounds good too. Don’t see a problem with this one either.

“Further, “gender equality” is defined in Section 4 (Definition of Terms) as “absence of discrimination, on the basis of a person’s sex, sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Sounds about right. Aaaaand that’s about it. Apparently “don’t discriminate against homosexuals” means “everyone be gay”. Wow. A really powerful case they got here. How could I possibly defend such an incredible flaw. Really? This is the proof of a secret plot to forward homosexuality? How deluded  does anyone have to be to go from point A to point 431 in one go?

Oh wait, there’s more.

“Though media mileage may give the impression that a significant number of Filipinos exhibit homosexual behavior, it is actually the systematic implementation of an agenda by a small number of people that gives the illusion of huge numbers.

“I have to tell you that there is a huge homosexual network all over the world, and although constituting a minority only of less than 3% of the population, we have to know that the homosexual movement is highly organized and very well-financed,”

What? Wait a minute. A moment ago she was arguing that homosexuals were portraying themselves as an oppressed minority to forward an agenda and now she’s saying that the homosexuals are a minority but puts up the illusion of majority numbers to forward their movement? Which is it? Are they trying to make themselves look like a minority or a majority? You can’t even keep your own story straight.

“And it is international in scope, which is why they have international associations. They are also very anti-Catholic… and so with various organizations they have been influencing media, education and even religion. Here in the Philippines, there is the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the work of which is to influence politics and legislation, to build a powerful political movement, and they are actually succeeding a little in that area,”

Woah, alot of loaded statements here. Anti-Catholic and influencing media, education, religion influence politics and legislation. This is the part of the discussion where I’ll be a little skeptical and ask for some backing to her claims and I’ll reserve comment until such appears.

“The Human Rights Campaign is their political action committee to help elect homosexual congressional candidates and those favorable to their agenda,”

Anyone, correct me if I’m wrong but, isn’t that what every other political party wants? To have candidates favorable to their agenda elected.

I’ll add a couple of paragraphs from the article itself to wrap this whole thing up. Notice the choice of words here.

Amid tackling more issues regarding unfortunate consequences of homosexual activity and predisposing factors of leading to homosexuality, the pro-life advocate explained the need to spread the life-affirming message against the backdrop of the push for homosexual rights.

“Our goal in presenting to you the homosexual agenda is not really to incite hatred for those persons who suffer homosexual inclinations nor even against the gay activitists. It is to alert the public about the campaign to promote homosexual practice, and to call people — especially us in the Catholic Church — in all sectors to make a firm and appropriate response and address different approaches available to men and women of homosexual inclination who wish to leave… the life of active homosexuality.”

She reminded everyone that healing can be and has been found after living a homosexual lifestyle, and that “every sign of discrimination in their regard should be avoided,” quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Returning to the question “Are gays oppressed?” it is amusing to see a woman who at first sought to disprove this ended up demonstrating to the letter. People (or a certain group) are qualified to call themselves oppressed when certain rights are denied them. When the right to be free from discrimination is considered as a negative, that in itself is discrimination, that is oppression.

No it seems Dr. Acosta is seeing fangs in flowers on this one. The agenda she claims to exist and the evidence she puts forward are completely non-existent. And the fact that anyone actually listened to this (much less take it seriously) is utterly laughable. Maybe she should try going into entertainment.

Advertisements

Pascals Bull

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , on Nobyembre 15, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

A little background; Blaise Pascal was a French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist who lived in the 17th century. Considered a child prodigy he invented the mechanical calculator. He wrote extensively on projective geometry and corresponded with Pierre de Fermat on probability theory, influencing economics and social science. Later in life he had what he called a second conversion and abandoned scientific work and devoted himself to philosophy and theology. He wrote the Pensees but died before he finished. Within it we find the in/famous Pascals Wager.

Back in my first year of college our philosophy class taught us Pascals Wager. The idea that if one was unsure of the existence of God you can simply treat the question like a bet and decide depending on the possible rewards and losses if you were to pick the correct or incorrect choice.

In a nutshell Pascals Wager states that: (1) If you chose to believe in God and he doesn’t exist you lose nothing. But, if you chose not to believe in God and he does exist then you will lose everything by burning for all eternity in hell.

(2) Conversely, if you chose to not to believe in God and he doesn’t exist then nothing happens. But, if you chose to believe in God and he does exist then you will be rewarded for all eternity in heaven.

So, by gauging the possible rewards and losses of the four different scenarios Pascal concludes that the better bet would be the one that favors Gods existence.

This was an intriguing argument that reinforced my Catholicism with apparent reason and logic before even greater reason and logic caused it all to crash and burn after I searched for the wagers rebuttals. For in my mind Pascals Wager must have flaws and rebuttals for non-believers to continue to exist despite this seemingly strong argument. And rebuttals it had indeed.

I feel it would be petty to fault our former professors for providing us with only one side of a flawed system. But in trying to see it from their point of view they were working for a highly religious institution however, this still struck me as a little dishonest regardless of the situation.

Pascal described the Wager in the Pensees in this way;

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is….

…”God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Before we dive into it I hope you will all humor me in being a smartass. Pascal described God as being infinitely incomprehensible which means we will never understand the nature or essence of God no matter what we do but in being able to describe God as being infinitely incomprehensible we understand that God is beyond our understanding which means that he is not. Because comprehending that he is incomprehensible is comprehension in itself.

As well as to contest the point that God has no limits. If we point to the argument “can God make a stone so heavy that even he can’t lift it?” either way we can see that God is limited. Being all knowing he cannot not know something, being all powerful he cannot not do something etc.

Here he states that both proving and disproving the existence of God are equally impossible given the “infinite chaos” that lies between him and our reason and that he is infinitely incomprehensible. In an earlier post entitled Proving a negative (1999) I transcribed an essay which explains that not only is the burden of proof on those that make a positive claim (ie there is a God) but that the negative claim (ie no there isn’t) is vindicated and does not need to do anything more to prove their side if the positive side provides no satisfactory evidence.

This system is used by all people when discussing dragons and unicorns. If there is no evidence for the existence of dragons and unicorns then they do not exist and there is no reason to suppose that they do. Everyone agrees on this but suddenly shift their perspective when the discussion turns to God.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. “No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.”

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

Here he criticizes agnostics. Those that neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God. Agnostics are sometimes described as people who do not wish to chose any side of the argument. Pascal argues that agnostics cannot exist in this case and all must make a wager and refusing to participate is impossible because whatever we do we are “living the choice”. In other words there is a certain degree of theism and atheism in all of us, even agnostics must acknowledge that. There is no absolute middle ground. Some agnostics will lean more towards theism and some to atheism in the way they live their lives or in how they think, whether its by degrees of 1% or less does not matter, one side is greater (no matter how slightly) than the other. In this vein I agree.

“That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much.” Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.

And this is the wager itself which I described earlier except for the part about hell which he did not mention because he thought that arguing on the basis of reward alone was sufficient reason to bet on the “I believe” option. And I’d also like to add that the idea that “if one believes and God does not exist then nothing is lost” is not entirely accurate since people dedicate large amounts of their time and money and in some cases their entire lives for the religion (even died for it) and if found that there is indeed no God then all sacrifices made for the religions would have been in vain.

The proposition did not live long before it was criticized by Voltaire who described it as “indecent and childish”. But since then, there have been two dominant arguments against Pascals wager that could not be addressed fully since Pascal died before the Pensees were even published but at least one was anticipated nonetheless.

The first is called the Argument of inconsistent revelations. Since there are countless religions with even more countless gods throughout human history they all indeed need to be factored into the wager. This assertion is based in the argument that since Pascal is trying to prove the greater chance of infinite reward by believing in a God that begs the question “which God?”

The “which God?” question is a valid point considering that no God of the modern era has more evidence to his existence than those of the ancient ones. The only reason that modern religions still persist is through sheer number of believers, but that is hardly evidence for existence since the truth of any topic is not subject by the number of people who believe in them. Therefore Ra, Zeus, Thor, and Quetzatcoatl are all eligible to become part of the wager.

If all these supernatural deities were to be considered then the simple coin toss Pascal proposed suddenly turns into a roulette wheel. With greater chances of betting wrong (choosing the wrong god to believe in) and thus not gaining any reward while simultaneously suffering whatever punishment is decreed by the “correct” choice (if one is provided). Utterly destroying the mathematical advantage the wager claimed in believing in God.

To illustrate:

If it were between Christianity and Atheism the odds of getting it right or wrong are 50% each.

If we were then to add Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, Roman mythology, Norse mythology, and Paganism (not to mention all the different sects that disagree within each religion); the chance of your choosing right are drastically reduced to 8% and the chances of being wrong is 97%.

Pascal anticipated this argument in the Pensees saying:

What say [the unbelievers] then? “Do we not see,” say they, “that the brutes live and die like men, and Turks like Christians? They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us,” etc. If you care but little to know the truth, that is enough to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. That would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where everything is at stake. And yet, after a superficial reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc. Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us.

A lot of people have a lot of opinions on this short and confusing passage. Basically he’s saying that people who are satisfied with the many gods counter are lazy and are not interested in the truth of whether or not Christianity is like every other religion and that this argument may suffice in other questions of philosophy but not here where “everything is at stake”.

Pascal scholars note that when Pascal said “look at it in detail” he was referring them to his chapter “on other religions”. Thankfully, Pascals views on other religions is summarized.

As far as Pascal is concerned, the demise of the pagan religions of antiquity speaks for itself. Those pagan religions which still exist in the New World, in India, and in Africa are not even worth a second glance. They are obviously the work of superstition and ignorance and have nothing in them which might interest ‘les gens habiles’ (‘clever men’) Islam warrants more attention, being distinguished from paganism (which for Pascal presumably includes all the other non-Christian religions) by its claim to be a revealed religion. Nevertheless, Pascal concludes that the religion founded by Mohammed can on several counts be shown to be devoid of divine authority, and that therefore, as a path to the knowledge of God, it is as much a dead end as paganism. Judaism, in view of its close links to Christianity, he deals with elsewhere.”

As you can see, Pascal does not even take the counter argument seriously and dismisses it outright without considering it. A combination of arrogance and ignorance on the part of Pascal drastically reducing the credibility of the wager.

The second argument against the wager is called the “argument from inauthentic belief”. Some people argue that merely believing in a God just to be safe is not true beleif and is therefore dishonest and unacceptable to God. This arguments works under the assumption that God does exist.

What critics are objecting to is Pascal’s subsequent advice to an unbeliever who, having concluded that the only rational way to wager is in favor of God’s existence, points out, reasonably enough, that this by no means makes him a believer.

Pascal argues that if the wager is valid, the inability to believe is irrational, and therefore must be caused by feelings: “your inability to believe, because reason compels you to [believe] and yet you cannot, [comes] from your passions.” This inability, therefore, can be overcome by diminishing these irrational sentiments: “Learn from those who were bound like you. . . . Follow the way by which they began: that is by doing everything as if they believed, by taking holy water, by having Masses said, etc. Naturally, even this will make you believe and will dull you. -‘But this is what I am afraid of.’- And why? What have you to lose?

But we find that the wager is invalid and non-belief in anything unsupported by evidence (therefore unjustified to be believed) is the height of rationality. Pascal argues that if you act as if you believe for long enough then pretty soon you will. If you’ll notice his exact words were “this will make you believe and will dull you” How appropriate.

However belief alone would not be enough to gain access to heaven. According to the Bible, more is required for salvation than mere belief in God. One also needs to believe in God’s son (Mark 16:16; John 3:18,36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12), repent (Luke 13:3,5), be born again (John 3:3), be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), believe everything in the gospel (Mark 16:16), eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood (John 6:53), be like a child (Mark 10:15), and do good deeds, esp. for needy people (Matt. 25:41-46; Rom. 2:5-10; John 5:28-29; James 2:14-26).

No doubt Pascal and the wager were formidable lines of thinking however because of his untimely death Pascal never had the chance to fully regard its criticisms and was unable to refine it to the level in which it would have been nearly irrefutable. Today however it is seen only as an outdated argument in theological debates and not even considered as valid because even modern apologetics fail to cover the gaps left by the wager. Instead what we have is a genius’ greatest legacy is at the same time his greatest failure.

“Just a theory”

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , on Nobyembre 10, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

When coming into internet debates about the validity of the theory of evolution it has come to my annoyed attention that a favorite tactic of those who choose to disbelieve these widely accepted principles in science is that they cannot accept or believe something that is “just a theory”.

“You cannot prove evolution because they are just theories”

Or something along these lines. It becomes painfully obvious to anyone who has studied science (or at least its terminology) or to anyone honest enough to pursue these debates on youtube as well as any other public forum that anyone who utters those three words have no idea what they’re talking about.

To the ordinary mans ears, when the word theory is introduced into the conversation the immediate reaction and understanding that come to their mind in that it is like a scientific guess, something no one is ever sure of, something that has yet to be proven etc. However, if you listen in on the conversations of actual scientists you will soon find out that when they say “theory” and when you say “theory” then the two of you are talking about two drastically different things.

Lets go over some definitions;

According to Oxford:

Fact-a thing that is known or proved to be true

Hypothesis-a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Theory-a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

According to Thesaurus:

Fact-verifiable truth, reality

Hypothesis-a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as anexplanation for the occurrence of some specified group ofphenomena, either asserted merely as a provisionalconjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) oraccepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

Theory- a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles ofexplanation and prediction for a class of phenomena

As you can see the layman theory is more akin to a hypothesis and thus, more often than not, a theory is something that has been seen as dominantly correct to have gained a higher standing than a hypothesis. But why not call them facts if they’ve been proven and prevent all this confusion?

The answer is quite simple, scientists aren’t 100% sure.

He said what?!

To quote Agent K from MIB: “1500 years ago everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago everybody knew that the earth was flat and 15 minutes ago you thought that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know, tomorrow.”

The difference between science and religion is that one holds sacred dogma untenable to change, unrectifiable and infallible to a fault; and everyone who does try to divert will be punished while the other is constantly changing in order to further add to the sum of knowledge and improve the understanding of the earth and universe around us continuously. So whatever explanations we ever come up with must not be believed but to be understood, tested, corrected and even rejected if a major flaw is found.

It is common practice in science (and mathematics) to hold at least a 5% margin of error. Error being a wrong assumption based on the absence of data that would prove otherwise. Anticipating that we’re already wrong on some level, in some way is nothing to be ashamed about. In fact it is wisdom that is forever beyond the comprehension of religion that dictates absolute knowledge and truth for all times and circumstances because it derives guidance from an all-knowing being.

Carl Sagan once said “Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny”

Many are unaware at just how much study and effort actually goes into the creation of a theory and its subsequent defense. In order to be even called a theory it must first undergo Peer Review which is the bloodiest battle of survival in the academic arena. Ideas and hypothesis must be tested, retested, falsified and go through everything again when a flaw is found or when new information is discovered at any time at any place. It is insurmountably difficult to produce such a theory that can stand the test of time for more than half a century, but after 150 years The theory of evolution is still going strong. After 150 years of testing, retesting, adjustments and attempted falsifications the theory of evolution is still the only theory that can explain the diversity of life on the planet.

Along those lines, there are the same amount of people who are unaware that gravity, yes the phenomenon of matter attracting matter of lesser mass, is also considered a theory. We know things fall down, thats the fact, but why do things fall down? Thats the theory.

In fact we have more evidence and understand evolution more than we understand gravity that we see and demonstrate on a daily basis. Science has even demostrated that the original Newtonian mechanics are wrong and was subsequently replaced by Einsteins theory of relativity. But even that can’t fully explain the nature of gravity and how it can warp space time as well as being at odds with quantum mechanics. The theory of relativity. thought compelling, is not a unifying theory, evolution is.

Evolution is supported by Cellular biology, Genetics, Anatomy, Geology, Paleontology, Environmental systems, Tectonics, Atomic chemistry and Taxonomy. Not to mention that it is the very backbone of biology just as atomic theory is the backbone of modern chemistry.

When different fields of study across the spectrum of science conduct individual studies and every conclusion that they ever made pointed to one single conclusion and supported one single theory and its principles would you dismiss that theory and conclusion on the whole merely because it takes the name of theory and that rejecting it at such a shallow basis requires you to dismiss every field of study that has ever supported it?

In fact let me reintroduce you to some other theories:

Plate tectonic theory

Atomic theory

Germ Theory

Cell Theory

Heliocentric theory

Tide theory

Most of these you might recognize as being common facts of life but have not known that they were considered as theories. Now then, will you dismiss the nuclear bomb, earthquakes, the common cold, and the fact that the earth revolves around the sun because their “just theories”?

So every time you get the urge to rebuttle with the phrase “just a theory” replace it with a thought and think to yourself “just shut up” and maybe you’ll emerge with most of your dignity intact.