kickingtone Posted December 17, 2019 Author Share Posted December 17, 2019 13 minutes ago, MDEW said: And if someone did dine with a Yeti and told the story he would not be believed because it is in the public opinion that Yeti's do not exist . Merely mentioning seeing something odd in the sky while piloting years ago would get you fired even though you saw something you could not explain. Now that NASA has released video it is at least plausible that there are flying crafts that are not "normal aircrafts". These videos were leaked years before NASA admitted to having them. So the "Idea" of there being technology beyond our understanding has been known to the scientific community even though they may not have admitted it. In the 70's people that I know and have no reason to lie had experiences with a large biped, tents were toppled, footprints were found, photographs taken and casts made. You may not have reason to believe the validity of Yeti and science may not. but it does not mean there is no evidence. It means that the evidence has not been taken seriously. I guess what I am saying is that regardless of what science says experience will sway the opinion. Before there is scientific research there is a theory on which to focus the research. I don't even think that the "scientific community" exists. Often what you get is a few small teams with the means to challenge, test or accredit anything. The rest is echo chamber. For example, talking about the 5 sigma confidence level in particle physics, the so-called "Higg's Boson" has not be proven to exist according to that standard (you can Wiki it). Even the questionable aggregated studies they have cobbled together can't make it 5 sigma. Yet, the "scientific community" put on a fantastic charade celebrating the discovery, awarded a Nobel Prize, and propagated that sham gesture of Stephen Hawking conceding to losing a bet on the existence of the Higg's. (All in time for the funding of the next Hadron Collider). Small groups of people and huge sums of money is often behind scientific fact. That is one reason why I do not equate scientific fact with truth. Scientific fact is what it is, human flaws and all. If theories are said to be based on scientific fact (often with the intention of lending them "credibility"), it doesn't cut much ice with me. It only makes it as credible as the flawed human system of scientific methodology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now