Jump to content

This is falsetto, right?

Rate this topic


kickingtone

Recommended Posts

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

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

31 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 .

"Public opinion" is another shaky concept, usually equating to the echo chamber.

You don't have to go as far as Yetis to know that science gets many things wrong. Your personal experience of fact does not change scientific fact.

If science says that you cannot read writing in your sleep and do arithmetic, because certain centres of your brain are "switched off", that doesn't make it true. It remains scientific fact, but, if you have a dream in which you read writing or do sums, the the scientific fact is wrong. Your experience won't invalidate it as a scientific fact. It would just be a false scientific fact.

A few decades ago, science claimed that animals had no consciousness or intelligence. People with pets knew better. Maybe science was influenced by the political aim of keeping animal activists at bay. It didn't stop the thing from being a scientific fact. It was simply a corrupt scientific fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

"Public opinion" is another shaky concept, usually equating to the echo chamber.

You don't have to go as far as Yetis to know that science gets many things wrong. Your personal experience of fact does not change scientific fact.

If science says that you cannot read writing in your sleep and do arithmetic, because certain centres of your brain are "switched off", that doesn't make it true. It remains scientific fact, but, if you have a dream in which you read writing or do sums, the the scientific fact is wrong. Your experience won't invalidate it as a scientific fact. It would just be a false scientific fact.

A few decades ago, science claimed that animals had no consciousness or intelligence. People with pets knew better. Maybe science was influenced by the political aim of keeping animal activists at bay. It didn't stop the thing from being a scientific fact. It was simply a corrupt scientific fact.

I understand what you are saying now....Scientific fact is or can be separate from reality. Or perceived reality (Whatever reality really is...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...