Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibartik
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
why do you reject the idea that the scientific establishment might have bias to ignore studies that discredit studies they find a lot of confirmation bias in?
Im serious, the data to determine this stuff does not go back far enough to take into account any other arguments than the very small sample size extrapolates 80% of its data from.
It's just looking more and more like the solar cycle has more of an effect on climate than we understood 20 years ago, and this science is often rejected on principal, not science.
|
Because thats literally what science is. Its what isnt. Its about coming up with a theory, then trying to prove yourself wrong. Then submitting it to your peers to prove wrong. If nobody can prove it wrong, its whats left, the truth. If you can change a field with a single discovery, become famous, become a millionaire with a nobel prize in your field, you think they wouldnt do it? LOL
If you had some theory that would turn an established theory over, thats how science works. Newtonian physics were replaced with molecular physics. Physics is slowly being replaced with quantum physics.
You'd become famous over night. You'd also be doing humanity a great service by stopping us from wasting more time and energy on a theory which is wrong. People would be frothing at the mouth to come out with their new theory, there is more incentive to prove something wrong than go along with the status quo.
Science is about proving things wrong. Not saying "this is right forever" when it very well could be wrong. You keep plugging away at it til you're left with nothing but the self evident truth.
04-21-2022, 03:07 PM
Linear Mode
