Do you believe the scientific community in 2020?

I never asserted anything, just said that it goes against the teachings that scientists have taught for over 60 years or so.
As to support for my apparent assertion, oh please, stating that the actions of two minor planets weighing in at many billions of tonnes would be the same as two objects that would weigh in the region of maybe 1,000 tonnes is laughable at best.
The general consensus of all scientists is that our own moon came into being because of a violent collision between a minor planet and our own planet, which could not happen with a ‘soft’ collision.
Agree to disagree :wink:

As for scientific proof as to what happened in prehistory, how can any theory be proven. unless someone has invented a time machine.

Cheers

Is this thread still alive? Where are the trolls and the flames?

When you embrace a thought pattern and accept it as a truth, i.e. when you program your subconscious mind for it, it will mold and shape your experience creating your reality. It is a powerful energy shaping act which involves a lot more than you may think.

So why should I be believing into someone else?

First and foremost you should believe wisely, learning to believe if required. You should believe for the highest and best. You should believe in The :-) Light. You should believe in your self-development. Essentially, you should believe in anything you wish to experience. I understand many of you may not be able to believe in many things yet, this is understandable and development level related.

If after reasonable manifesting time something you believe doesn't comes along, you either did it wrong or something is likely blocking it. You need mind reprogramming then.

Back to my lair.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." Einstein

Hitchens’s razor

Only true when one has to try and prove something to someone else. That is the beauty of personal experience, no need to prove to others the existence of it or not. Quote: "One can learn all the secrets of the universe and effectively control it, yet still not know me".

Richard P. Feynman

^ I knew when someone such as yourself would be confronted with a quote that defies science, you would lower yourself to lowly personal insults. Now you may understand why many don't hold science to the highest standard. Nice time while it lasted though, thanks for the entertainment, bye.

The irony is I did not say anything about you, as the quote applies to everyone, but you seem to have something to say about me, even contradicting your previous quote.

Nevertheless, feel free to say hello.

[deleted]

As the saying goes, “there are lies, d@#^ lies, and statistics.” Oftentimes, the population is fed some statistic as proof of settled science, but it isn’t necessarily so. If we are told, for example, that 97% of scientists agree on something, we’d do well to examine who those scientists are, what are their qualifications, what question were they asked (what exactly did they agree to), and so on.

I like what some others have written about the low relative value that a ‘consensus’ often can have. Sometimes a consensus only proves that the vast majority can be (and often is) wrong.

And sometimes a ‘consensus’ can be faked with statistics.

By the way…. I am a man. I can change. If I have to. I guess. :wink: But I don’t have to. :smiley: So I choose… to stay a man. (Heck, I already have the Y chromosome, so why not?) :+1:

:person_facepalming:

Phouton

Thou doth protest too much. :wink:

Really?

Hence the question, as you seem to admit is a “philosophical” question, not a scientific one. The reason to believe that the future will be like the past is fundamental to the laws of nature and science.

That’s just silly. You couldn’t do science at all. If natural law changed every day, the scientific method would never be reliable.

My problem is (like this thread is beginning to show) that many areas of science are trying to answer unanswerable questions, and expecting us not to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

The idea of a multiverse for example. If you find proof of such a thing, it would prove that the universe is much bigger than previously thought. Not that their are infinite universes.

You guys really need some definitions for these terms. This isn’t even a semantic argument, it’s just linguistic confusion.

I’d argue that much of philosophy is absolutely a science and not just humanities. I think those definitions are arbitrary and not as clear-cut as popular opinion makes them out to be either. (ex. epistemology, ontology, linguistics, etc.)

This too relies completely on your definition of a “universe”. You seem to be using it to mean “everything in existence (regardless of our ability to observe, interact with, or exist in it)” which AFAIK just isn’t the meaning that any professionals/experts in the field would use. That’s why the term “multiverse” exists, because it describes that vs “the universe” or “observable universe”.

pommie: my sincere apologies for quoting another member and posting that it was a quote from you. I was posting from a phone that chose that day to severely malfunction - that wasn’t the quote I was trying to insert. I’m sorry I didn’t realize the mistake earlier. I have deleted the previous post.

However, I don’t think the paper focusing on one example of the merging of objects is meant to make broad, general conclusions about the formation of the entire solar system. I think the authors are not claiming that they have disproved the general consensus. I don’t think we should read too much into their conclusions.

At NorthernHarrier, all sweet mate :beer:

Cheers David

Don’t fail to read the retractions, they are part of the process of fixing errors in published science and medicine:

Richard P. Feynman
[/quote]

If you are referring to the quote from Dr. Feynman, I’d like to encourage you to re-read it. It is not at all intended as an insult, much less a personal insult.

It is a reminder to everyone to be careful not to unduly accept the conclusions that best fit what you want to believe, but rather be willing to examine evidence critically and select the conclusion that best fits the evidence.

I really hope this isn’t a trend… believing this way. The scientific community is built upon raw data. Factual data. Numbers don’t lie. True, numbers can be manipulated. But, when you’re talking about disparate groups calculating the same data, they are inadvertently cross-checked. Falsification ends up discovered. If there’s a concerted effort to deceive, it would have to be a global conspiracy that would require incredible diligence, the likes of which our societies have been unable to achieve. The upshot? Scientific community is more trustworthy than the religious community.

Protest, or party? :partying_face: Hope you’re having fun too.

An argument from incredulity? * wonders incredulously* :wink:

I should hope so considering I explicitly stated it. Virtually everything involving thought is philosophy. Is a distinction being implied between philosophy, natural philosophy, natural science, etc? As BurningPlayd0h said, I think some of the confusion here is due to a lack of definitions because:

nope nope nope… I maintain that the question of consistency is both philosophical and within the narrower scope of empirical natural science.

And yet, it is reliable. Therefore… ?

If “natural law” changed, I would argue the scientific method would not necessarily be unreliable. As long as it changed in an understandable way, it could be incorporated into science, making it even more invaluable.

The multiverse is not a good example as it is a hypothesis purely due to mathematical possibilities, and it has no scientific consensus as there is no empirical evidence.

Are you suggesting that it is an unanswerable question, that it should not be investigated by science, or that there are no multiverses (with proper definition…)? These would be quite a strong statements.


Perhaps the core of the issue is a dissatisfaction with the idea of empiricism, since it can never prove anything. If a mathematical/logical proof is required to be satisfied with an answer, then all questions are unanswerable by the natural sciences.

It seems there is an expectation of seemingly absolute correctness from science, but also disillusionment if positions change (and inexplicably also if they don’t change). Both are unreasonable of anything empirical.

Focus on absolute correctness loses sight of probabilities and confidence levels. It’s reminiscent of neglect of probability, disproportionately expanding the mere possibility of incorrectness to doubting everything.


And now for something completely different. More mental puzzles: