My hypothesis is bigger then yours

(Zornik - all of this revisited)

You know, I think that if you look at it closely there is 2 ways to claim something to be part of truth. The first is scientific proof, the other is belief. But in essence they both rely on a hypothesis. And the only thing that separates them is how this hypothesis is proven to be true or not.
 

So which hypothesis is bigger then the other? Well that depends on how convincing they are true.

Scientific hypothesis don't prove themselves, they are continuesly attempted to disprove and then acknowledging they work. Like; '"This is a safe car", it isn't safe because the designers say so, but because the more the type of car hits and the fewer people die, the more safe it is acknowledged to be.

Belief hypothesis prove themselves by acclamation, there is some fact one needs to believe in. I most cases it is apparently so obvious that nobody even dears to challenge it. "This is a chair" In most cases people will simply just assume it is a chair, and they will be genuinely amazed when the 'chair' fails in being a chair.

But such above claims can of course be wrong. What one needs to wonder with scientific claims is; "Why wouldn't this be true?" The answer to that, albeit long, should convince you of the truth. And with claims of the belief; "What makes your claim true?" This relies strongly how and by who the argument is used.

And this teaches us 3 things; 
One, believing is easier then scientific proof.
Two, Scientific proof takes patience.
Three, you shouldn't mix up the truth claim questions with different kind of hypothesis.


Concluding the reason why, when finding me in the following conversation: person: "You don't believe in god?"
me: "No is that weird"
person: "But why?"
me: "Because I have no need for faith"
person: "No seriously, why don't you believe in god?" 

Go fuck yourself