4 ms·
This is intellectually dishonest. You're pushing all the work and rigor on others while accepting none for yourself. You're saying "I don't understand this subj
by InclinedPlane 9y ago
This is intellectually dishonest. You're pushing all the work and rigor on others while accepting none for yourself. You're saying "I don't understand this subject, but I still have an opinion, it's your job to also explain the subject to me in addition to explaining why I'm wrong". This is unacceptable in an age where access to the internet (Wikipedia, etc.) makes educating yourself easy. Do better.
- effie 9y agoI am not sure why you are putting words in my mouth, I never said anything about me not understanding the subject or demanding that you should explain the subject to me. Please read my post again and if you can, address the points made there. EDIT: those points, slightly expanded, are: 1) Could it be that Newtonian/Einsteinian models of motion in extremely distant, never visited places are extrapolations in error? If not, how do we know that, since we cannot experiment there, with massive objects on astronomical scales? 2) Is working in line of a popular paradigm much more preferable to most researchers than proposing a radical new theory that is inconsistent with it? 3) Searching for different model / theory is hard work but if it successfuly explains something and provides directions to continue, is preferable to fitting massive quanta of data to a model with infinity degrees of freedom (density of dark matter in space). 4) It is hard to find an example of scientific theory fitting all the evidence. Fitting all the evidence suggests we are doing a fitting exercise, not a scientific theory.