Quote Originally Posted by Angelique View Post
Science and scientific "knowledge and facts" changes every hundred years, or fifty years, five years or every year.
Earth was flat, then Columbus happened.
Earth was the center of the universe and stationary.
Remeber that planet called Pluto? Not a planet anymore.
¿Remember the asteroid that killed off the dinasaurs? May have been a coincidence.
Microscopic life, find evidence from before the 1600's.
Relativity anyone?

Neuroscience and behavioral psychology are just now getting started, give it some time and perhaps we will see lots of new journal reasearch pointing to new evidence on snake "feelings" and "emotions". With time lots of things will change. People used to say emotions and such were not caused by biochemical-neuro-reactions, but it has been proven that "love" and "attraction" are all induced by chemical reactions.

I rest my case, there is no such thing as Scientific Knowlege, only a temporaraly accepted explanation of phenomenons.
That is ridiculous.

The earth was not flat, people believed it was flat.

The earth was not the center of the universe, people believed it was.

That planet called Pluto got demoted. Its still there. We just call it something different. Nothing changed about it. We reclassify things all the time.

That asteroid was a coincidence. It wasn't sent here to kill dinosaurs. dinosaurs didn't even go extinct they evolved into birds. Humans being wrong about that THEORY can hardly be used to discredit anything. It was never scientific fact in the first place.

Microscopic life existed before the 1600's and we found it when we got the tools to see things that small, again has nothing to do with the argument.

What about Relativity, seriously what are you getting at.

The people who believe in things without any proof believed that emotions were not caused by biochemical-neuro-reactions and eventually we managed convince enough people that was dumb and we ignore the people who are left.

In every one of your examples, except the relativity one which I don't get, you show people believing something based on limited understanding of the world around them. In every case a greater understanding of the world around them showed us that there is a better theory that explains what we see.

Scientific Knowledge is the temporarily accepted explanation of phenomenons. They are not two different things they are the same. I think that based on the evidence I have scene snakes don't have the emotion of love as we define it. So unless you can refute the evidence you aren't changing my mind. I am not saying that snakes are not amazing creatures capable of complex behaviors that we are far from understanding. They are truly amazing. They don't have the parts of the brain necessary to love the way humans do however. So unless they are hiding a more complex brain someplace I am just not with the "my snake loves me" camp.