Very often,I come across conversations in platforms like Quora and Facebook where someone immediately dismissed the point of view of the other person just because it did not sound “logical” or is supported by science. Science was regarded as the sole benchmark for their microscopic analysis. Let’s take a look at how unreliable this point of view is..

Though mankind has benefited immensely from the advances in science, holding science as a benchmark for any logical argument is well… not logical 🙂

Consider this: Light was established as a phenomenon that moved in a straight line. You could see that light moved in a straight line and so it was logical. Next, Light was proved to able to propagate in waves as well and that was accepted too after sufficient proofs.Very recently,neutrinos (that were previously thought of as zero mass particles) were proved to have mass.

Almost on a yearly basis, a new scientific study comes up that disproves or provides provides reasonable amount of doubt to question the status quo.Which brings us to this question:

Why believe completely in something that keeps evolving and revealing a new facet with the passage of time?

Having an open mind and believing in something because a control group supported that evidence is normal,enjoying the benefits of something that simplifies your life and promoting its efficacy is agreeable but passionately arguing your case based on “published studies” is a mile away from being logical as you never know what the future holds or what is going to be disproved in the future.