I suppose then we need some intelligent and motivated folks to get about disproving this stuff.....Oh...wait....we already have them trying to do that. They're called SCIENTISTS. Until they accomplish disproving your list.....feel free to do it for them.
Quantum physics with its probability has indeed been very successful in applied science . And as a famous physicist said dont worry about understanding it just work the equations! He said no one understands it.
Lol Amazing statement.......as soon as you enter a discussion of science and then claim “ your own logic” is a source for truth, you’re no longer being scientific and did an about face. You just entered the world of woo woo. There are a plethora of sources to answer anyone’s questions on science. Just go to them. Unlike an individual, institutions of science including NASA , the AAAS etc. offer the best and most credible answers.
Yup.... The same can be said for nearly everyone else when they flip a switch to turn the lights on. But, we don’t call it “ God’s work” when the light goes on.
Scientific study is a disciplined process. Anything that refuses the rigors of scientific study is not science! A piece of bread with a hole in the center is not a bagel! I'll go a bit further and say science is quite open-minded to new information and challenges, while other stuff obviously is threatened by new and conflicting information and is closed-minded. IMO it is not possible to learn and grow while being closed-minded and threatened...
Most of us can only know what we know at this moment. What we know might be derived from a disciplined scientific process or perhaps something we read in a fictional book that resonates with us so well we accept that information as fact. Scientific laws and theories are based on a disciplined process of what we know this moment and based on current technology, and are not considered a closed book; this means into the future science is subject to new information, new technology, new anything, and when new results might be obtained and verified, this is precisely the way it should work! FACT is there are far more unanswered questions remaining to be discovered, therefore, a legitimate process must allow for new information and sometimes a change in the status quo...this is being open-minded. How can you refuse to take science seriously?
Sean Carroll is working on explaining the quantum level after academia mostly worked the equations or discovered new smaller particle/ wave. Sean on rogan said that many of the physicists went into philosophy since Feynman made his statement .So while a few may be looking like carroll its the philosophers that have dove into this subject. Or so carroll said. e So a few physicists are inquiring but little has been done since the pioneers who were concerned and came up with some interpretations like the early Copenhagen interpretation.
How about this? Real scientists have no problem in admitting they were wrong. They had a theory, it did not work, they rip it up and start again. Fanatics however continue to try and prove they are still right, even if all proof shows it is not true. I for one still remember the large number of people who bought into the "Cold Fusion" craze in 1989. And a lot of scientists bought into it. And even as it was proven wrong, a huge number still claim it is true, and continue even decades later to prove it is. Even today, it is not hard to find "scientists" who claim that the research was correct. I view these "climate scientists" largely the same way. They make and publicize their "predictions" over and over again, and almost universally they are wrong. In fact, many times they are almost the complete opposite of what really happened. And how often have they said "Yep, we blew it! We need to rip up this research and start all over again." Well,damned near never. They just double-down, and make even more crazy predictions. And when those once again fail to happen, they shift the blame away from their science and onto something else. I do not see them as scientists, I see them as snake oil salesmen. They are making their money based on their frightening predictions. The more they scare people, the more money they make. And no matter how wrong they have been shown to be over and over again, they have enough "true believers" that they keep doing it because it has been effective. And even more amusing, they have these who are faithful to attack anybody they do not agree with. Doubt their research even though it has been shown to be wrong over and over, and you are "anti-science". I have openly challenged people over and over to explain a few things to me about global climate, and I find it funny that all avoid answering. And they are not trick questions, they are actually really basic ones. But unless they can be answered to a reasonable degree, I find it impossible to take that side seriously. And the funny thing about this is, it is something I have been highly concerned about for decades. But these "true believers" are so obsessed with this belief they refuse to consider anything other than what they have been told. I have even been told I was wrong and my area of concern is of no importance. This is why I take such a dim view of the "Climate Scare" people. Quite literally, they can not "see the forest through the trees".
It is not my logic. I do not own logic. I keep pointing you to them (the theories of science themselves) and you keep ignoring them. False Authority Fallacy. NASA, AAAS, etc. are not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The correct sources are the theories themselves.
Nope, not the institutions. Science is not individual studies nor is it the opinions individuals. It’s consensus....and institutional. Until you get that, your references are less valid then mine and ALWAYS will be.
You are non science. Your opinions are just that. Opinions. The instant you say that consensus institutional science is false, you’ve just claimed to be more astute then all “the people” and their the findings of the departments of every university, government and major research corporation in the world. Laughable.
Science is not theories. It’s activity that occurs at institutions of science that provide the most reliable evidence on any topic. “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
Wow this caught my eye. So the consensus view of universities, governments, and corporations has always been correct?
Nope, institutions are not science, and neither is consensus. Learn what science is and how it works.
Correct. I am a person. So are yours, genius. Science is not consensus nor an institution of any sort. Mostly correct. I am more astute than many of them, not all of them. Not at all.
Yes it is. Specifically, falsifiable theories. The activity is forming a theory and then testing it internally against logic and externally against a null hypothesis. It can occur anywhere. Science does not make use of supporting evidence. Not what science is.