3 ms·
>Thinking a crater was 10,000 years old when it's actually 57,000,000 year old is so fantastically incorrect that it should immediately disqualify the persons p
by ellopoppit 4y ago
>Thinking a crater was 10,000 years old when it's actually 57,000,000 year old is so fantastically incorrect that it should immediately disqualify the persons proposing it from further part in the discussion.
That's not how science works.
If scientists make hypothesis based on prelimary evidence which turns out later to be erroneous based on new evidence, that does not banish them from science. What a silly anti-scientific notion that is.
You're playing the same ideological game that the critics of heliocentrism, antisceptics, vaccinology, plate tectonics, the Alvarez hypothesis, etc. all played.
Real science is based on humility and doubt, not arrogance and gate keeping.
- RosanaAnaDana 4y ago>Real science is based on humility and doubt, not arrogance and gate keeping. 1: No, real science is based on evidence and falsification. 2: I find your gatekeeping statement about science not being about gatekeeping interesting.
- ellopoppit 4y ago>1: No, real science is based on evidence and falsification Doubt is intrinsic to falsification you silly goose! >2: I find your gatekeeping statement about science not being about gatekeeping interesting. Indeed that may seem linguistically ironic at first, until you study the history and how the most ground breaking science has always been persecuted by gatekeepers. Like a finger pointing at the moon, if you get hung up on the finger, you'll miss the moon.