Thats the purpose of this counterpoint. John_Doe is using one example of falsified data to throw out all data supporting evolution, a ridiculous position.
You miss my point. My point isnt one instance of a hoax. It is that the mainstream scientists refused to consider the evidence of it being a hoax for 40 years.
You make it sound like scientists of the time watched the fake being made then greedily rubbed their hands together thinking of all the money they could make off this hoax for 40 years
Everything is obvious in hindsight. Scientists “refuse to consider evidence” every day. What you see as solid evidence may be disregarded by others as fake, weak, or unimportant.
Yes. This is our fundamental difference on this subject, you believe in the mainstream scientists on this subject, I do not. We will not be able to convince each other. Lets agree on t
Do you think BCH is trestles?
You’ve also ignored the fact that the scientific community self-corrected. You can complain it wasn’t fast enough, if you’ve got a better alternative…
Science isn’t about believing others. Data is presented as is. & it is possible to think for your self & reach the same conclusions as a majority.
The majority always gets up-ended by a minority. Often it's a single researcher who found something, gets ostracized, and then won't let it go until their reaserch is acknowledged.
Seems more like a fact of life than an issue with science. kind of like BTC vs BCH.
Bingo
then idk why people place this issue at the feet of science.
Because many scientists in the majority have taken an arbiter-of-truth stance instead of one of curiosity. Also I think money is a very big factor.
as do religious figures (of nearly all religions). there's just no way to prove them wrong. & doesn't mean we should listen to them. yeah money & public policy is likely a huge factor.
There is not enough time in the day to consider every piece of evidence. Eg scientists could spend all day every day considering evidence from flat earthers.
Even if every point were refuted flat earthers would find more evidence & we’d get nowhere.
My 2 cents... stop believing everything you think you know is “real”. I think we live in a rational/ irrational construct. It could be both, or none all at the same time.
umm... ok. thanks? any specifics? “rational/irrational construct” is very vague. & why should I blindly accept whatever you think is real (whatever that is)?
I actually think flat earth theories are fun to explore deeply. These theories pose some valid questions and shouldn’t be dismissed just bc most can’t get beyond GROUPTHINK.
flat earth theories are not being dismissed because of accusations of group think on either side. they're dismissed because they hypothesize things that are not observed.
Reading flat earth, hollow earth, holofractal theories etc. expand awareness in our quest for truth. Theories aren’t necessarily truths. Most theories we have today aren’t truths.
I would hope by considering such theories people would become more critical / better able to reason with data.
Not asking you to blindly accept this. Try Rudolf Steiner: An Outline of Esoteric Science. It will open your eyes to a whole new theory that is just as plausible as anything else.
Going to be honest though, dont have high hopes. These spirit things will become experimentally testable in time. Everything else has.
There are many observable truths outlined in the book mentioned. What makes a living thing “alive”? As soon as you die you begin to decompose. What makes you compose?
thanks for the book. reading through wiki of Anthroposophy is not encouraging though.
Yeah Wikipedia will never get you there for any objective reality. Why not explore the source directly?
there are too many things to read :(
There are a lot of perspectives. Just remember not to fall for the fallacy from authority, or fallacy of majority. Just because MOST believe one reality doesn’t make it truth.
Very similar to scientific consensus. “It is a fallacy to claim something is true because of scientific consensus. The claim is not that scientific consensus is true
but that it is probable because of the supporting evidence amassed by those knowledgeable in the field and assessed by their piers. Very different.”
I would add evidence that people can test. not necessarily just "those knowledgeable in the field"
What we experience is not called reality because most people believe it. Its called reality because repeatable experiments collect data that describes (ie predicts) the world.
Humans inability to photosynthesize is reality, not because we voted & chose that as our reality but because there is evidence that can be repeated that supports this view of reality
(ie lacking proteins that plants use to photosynthesize, people starving to death in the sunlight, etc.)
It’s important to realize humans perception of reality is very limited. Plant medicines offer even more perspective in our quest for truth.
Plants are the source of health & happyness. Fresh fruits are my fuel. Marihuana opened my heart. DMT made me consciouss. Garlic is my antibiotic. Mother nature has all the knowledge.
From sound in our ears, to light in our eyes, to taste on our tongue, to touch on our nerves; everything we perceive is frequency. How to perceive more bandwidth?
What?? :)
Everything we perceive is frequency. Think about it. Electrical impulses being fed into our sensory perception. Only 5 senses. What other senses are we not perceiving?
As you say that it reminds me of my last LSD trip. I was in a dark room with little light looking at my hand which had waves around it. And thinking:...
...that the ankles of my body are actually similar to these of robots and I could make half of my hand disappear with my thoughts that scared me. Did you ever take LSD?
depends what you think reality is. if you assume every hallucination is reality then yeah our perception is limited.
“Hallucination” is a word used by people who are afraid to test the boundaries of perception. Plant medicines should not be discounted so easily.
“A hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus that has qualities of real perception.” Also includes things that that cannot be reliably repeated & tested.
If you throw out objectivity (ie repeatably testable), reality can be whatever you want it be (eg inedia). undermining the concept of reality.
Yeah, your point is some scientists refuse to consider literally all evidence thus we cant trust any of them. Ie one instance of “refusing to consider the evidence” to throw
out the rest of the sci community as unscientific & dogmatic.
