3 ms·

> I mean they are laws after all, You may want to do a little reading about what scientists mean by the words "law" versus "theory". It's more of a historical

by jlebar 7y ago

> I mean they are laws after all, You may want to do a little reading about what scientists mean by the words "law" versus "theory". It's more of a historical accident / the way scientists used to talk about things than a statement that we believe some things "a lot" and some things "may be wrong". > I don't think science is ever settled I mean, do you believe it's settled science that the world is round? Or that germs cause some diseases? Or that gravity exists and is the cause of the planet's orbits around the sun? Or that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion? "Science is never settled" is kind of a strong statement... On this meta-point that science is never "more or less settled", scientists might disagree with you. What rule elevates your opinion over theirs, such that you're allowed to say it but they aren't? Other than, you believe they're wrong, which surely isn't the right rule?

kls 7y ago
I understand the historical context of laws, my point was they are fundamental and we can believe them as fundamental truths. But those truths are layered, for example the world is round to a point but if holographic projection hold true, then it's true nature is not round at all. That being said there is enough foundational evidence to say that the earth is round is true, but I would not say the science is settled. Not until we answer the question of holographic projection. Some germs cause disease, some are actually extremely beneficial to us, so I would not say germs cause disease is settled. I believe that the science is settled is as strong of a statement as it conveys no more research or discovery is needed. No rules elevate my opinion over theirs, if anything mine should be regarded as less I don't hold my credentials out there as an authority.
jlebar 7y ago
> I understand the historical context of laws, my point was they are fundamental and we can believe them as fundamental truths. I...don't think so? Newton's laws are not fundamental; they are consequences of deeper ideas like conservation of momentum, and they're just rough observations elaborated on by relativity. Newton's law of gravity is not fundamental, see general relativity. Ohm's law is not fundamental, it's a consequence of Maxwell's laws, which themselves are not fundamental. And so on. > But those truths are layered That's true! But the existence of ever-deeper layers doesn't mean that the higher-level layers aren't "more or less settled". The possible existence of a deeper truth about roundness doesn't mean that we can't tell flat-earthers they're wrong. So too about climate science. It seems you are misinformed about science in general and climate science specifically and angry that someone with authority is telling you that you're wrong. That's a shitty feeling.

by jlebar 7y ago

kls 7y ago

I understand the historical context of laws, my point was they are fundamental and we can believe them as fundamental truths. But those truths are layered, for example the world is round to a point but if holographic projection hold true, then it's true nature is not round at all. That being said there is enough foundational evidence to say that the earth is round is true, but I would not say the science is settled. Not until we answer the question of holographic projection. Some germs cause disease, some are actually extremely beneficial to us, so I would not say germs cause disease is settled. I believe that the science is settled is as strong of a statement as it conveys no more research or discovery is needed. No rules elevate my opinion over theirs, if anything mine should be regarded as less I don't hold my credentials out there as an authority.

jlebar 7y ago

> I understand the historical context of laws, my point was they are fundamental and we can believe them as fundamental truths. I...don't think so? Newton's laws are not fundamental; they are consequences of deeper ideas like conservation of momentum, and they're just rough observations elaborated on by relativity. Newton's law of gravity is not fundamental, see general relativity. Ohm's law is not fundamental, it's a consequence of Maxwell's laws, which themselves are not fundamental. And so on. > But those truths are layered That's true! But the existence of ever-deeper layers doesn't mean that the higher-level layers aren't "more or less settled". The possible existence of a deeper truth about roundness doesn't mean that we can't tell flat-earthers they're wrong. So too about climate science. It seems you are misinformed about science in general and climate science specifically and angry that someone with authority is telling you that you're wrong. That's a shitty feeling.