Agreed. There's definitely a gap in how conclusions are communicated to the public.
It's crazy to me that so much of the general public don't understand that science is just a protocol of observing, recording, testing, and analyzing results.
Mobiuthuselah
joined 2 years ago
Maybe to you. Scientific terms often include terms that have other connotations elsewhere, for example, significant or correlation.
Nothing in science is based on belief.
One of the first things I learned in bio lab in college is that you never believe anything in science. You accept or reject based on evidence.
In response to your edit, there's no evidence of that and there's plenty of evidence that the bacteria existed in North America before humans.
Had a friend tell me about using dental floss to wrap around as close to the skin as possible, tighten, and pull the tick off. Haven't tried it, but seems like it might work
She cheated on him repeatedly, teased him about his dick in front of his friends, wouldn't let him watch porn while she was secretly selling content on onlyfans, he paid for her drug addiction rehab, but he's a really nice guy and inherited a great house, so she needs to figure out how to dupe him into letting her stay. She's gonna be the best girlfriend... this time, although she was half-joking about that. Poor guy.
No, there isn't.
It's neither.
These work well even on tiny ticks. I got some when I was having trouble removing ticks around my cats' eyelids. I didn't want anything sharp or metal near their eyes.
You're welcome to define it however you like, but it is by definition an abuse of trust, the relationship, and the other person. You can read through OPs comments on other posts to come to your conclusion on whether or not you think they're abusive, but in a more general sense, that's what it is.
The choice isn't between being single or settling. It's between keeping your options open for the right person or going back to your abuser.
Beliefs are subjective. They can be held without evidence.
Scientific acceptance is the opposite.
I likely won't be able to change your mind because you believe they mean the same thing. I assure you they don't. You can't come to a scientific conclusion based on conviction. You have to accept or reject the null hypothesis based on evidence which even then doesn't necessarily verify your hypothesis. You also have to run everything through statistical analyses to be sure that the results couldn't occur randomly. Everything can change with new evidence and stronger tests (larger sample sizes, double blinds, etc.) Webster's won't teach you that. It records vernacular.