I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

science has unfortunately turned into just another religion in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, there are indisputable scientific facts. However, www.globalresearch.ca... Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

Scientist pick and choose what to report just like religious people. All based on beliefs they desperately want to cling to or money.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

In your opinion, what is the most scientifically-backed piece of knowledge about the Solar System... you feel is accurate enough for you to openly state: "I am 99.99% confident this fact is true?

All knowledge about the Solar System is scientifically derived. All of it is supported to a very high degree of confidence, though, like every claim based on science, it remains open to refutation or correction.

It is important to recognize where knowledge ends and speculation — even very well-founded speculation — begins. ‘There's water on Europa’ is knowledge. ‘There may be life on Europa’ is speculation.

a reply to: purplemer

try a biocentric view instead...

You’re not making a very good advertisement for it with your ungrammatical, misspelled posts and your inability to correctly enumerate the laws of thermodynamics.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Philosophy is the only example of a system that — so far — has remained uncorrupted after humans have decided to mix politics, economics and law with this field of study... whereas in science (which also is ITSELF uncorrupted) has managed to corrupt politics, economics and to a much lesser degree, law, because ways have been found to massively profit off of using the scientific method to prove things by people with nefarious agendas that want the general population to believe those results are reliable for the wrong reasons.

That’s an odd way of looking at it. Science hasn’t corrupted anything. Corrupt and greedy people have found ways to profit from advances in scientific knowledge at the expense of their fellows.

As for the deliberate dissemination of scientific falsehoods, the only way these can be refuted is through science itself.

What I said earlier is worth repeating: if something cannot be scientifically proven, it cannot be proven.

originally posted by: Astyanax
All knowledge about the Solar System is scientifically derived. All of it is supported to a very high degree of confidence, though, like every claim based on science, it remains open to refutation or correction.

It is important to recognize where knowledge ends and speculation — even very well-founded speculation — begins. ‘There's water on Europa’ is knowledge. ‘There may be life on Europa’ is speculation.

I understand.

Last time I will ask: do you want to answer the question in my last reply, or are you indicating you don't mind me choosing any scientific fact about the solar system to focus on? Remember this exact moment for a future time when you might be questioning yourself why you allowed me free reign when you could have made it far easier for yourself to think of one yourself.

originally posted by: Astyanax
That’s an odd way of looking at it. Science hasn’t corrupted anything. Corrupt and greedy people have found ways to profit from advances in scientific knowledge at the expense of their fellows.

As for the deliberate dissemination of scientific falsehoods, the only way these can be refuted is through science itself.

What I said earlier is worth repeating: if something cannot be scientifically proven, it cannot be proven.

I'll try putting it in other words: do you think the discovery and implementation of the scientific method would have been possible without first thinking about why it was necessary and why it was important to have such a method to adhere to? Or do you believe it is merely a natural consequence of evolution or some other science-based compulsion? (I am not talking about the scientifically-backed reasons about the body processes involved like thinking or moving itself, but rather the tendency for what seems currently to be strictly a human desire to derive knowledge about ourselves and reality around us, in the best, most reliable way we can?)

originally posted by: booyakasha
science has unfortunately turned into just another religion in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, there are indisputable scientific facts. However, www.globalresearch.ca... Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

Scientist pick and choose what to report just like religious people. All based on beliefs they desperately want to cling to or money.

We also can't ignore that some research simply will not get funded. We can only speculate why that might be though.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Last time I will ask: do you want to answer the question in my last reply, or are you indicating you don't mind me choosing any scientific fact about the solar system to focus on? Remember this exact moment for a future time when you might be questioning yourself why you allowed me free reign when you could have made it far easier for yourself to think of one yourself.

Gosh, that sounds almost threatening. Fire away!

a reply to: Dark Ghost

do you think the discovery and implementation of the scientific method would have been possible without first thinking about why it was necessary and why it was important to have such a method to adhere to?

It evolved with investigators' need for greater experimental rigour, reproducibility and accuracy. Obviously those investigators -- 'natural philosophers' as they were known -- were aware of these needs, in a practical, workaday fashion.

a human desire to derive knowledge about ourselves and reality around us, in the best, most reliable way we can

...is a natural and very useful instinct for an intelligent animal to evolve.

originally posted by: Astyanax

Gosh, that sounds almost threatening. Fire away!

There is water on Europa — one of Jupiter's moons. What makes this a scientific fact?

Science criticizes itself. This ultimately leads to perfection.

Self aware is one thing.
Self improving is another.

The big bang is absolutely hypothetical BS, but it's based on observable details, for example, because Gravity you can assume all matter will eventually be at a single point. Again. It's implied to be cyclical, reality could be everything just ends at a single point and there is no profound reoccurring cycle, a singularity.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

Science criticizes itself. This ultimately leads to perfection.

This couldent be further from the truth. Perfection.... right.... according to who's standard?

Perfection can never be reached in a finite system.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

There is water on Europa — one of Jupiter's moons. What makes this a scientific fact?

Spectroscopic evidence from as long ago as 1957 indicated that Europa, the most reflective natural object in the Solar System, had a surface of water ice. This was confirmed by Johnson amd Pilcher in 1977 by their observations using the Keck telescope in Hawaii. How spectroscopy reveals the composition of objects

On Monday, July 9, 1979, the Voyager 2 space probe approached to within about 125,000 miles of Europa on its way to the stars. It took photographs that showed the moon encased in ice, with a thin coating of mineral debris on top. The pattern of cracks and infilling, together with the lack of mountains, craters and other surface features, confirmed that Europa is indeed covered in ice. Voyager 2 photo of Europa.

Later, comparative examination of photos from Voyager with those taken by the later Galileo mission showed that the ice was moving about. The best explanation consistent with the type of movement was that heat from inside the moon had softened the ice or turned the lower portion of it into water. There might be an ocean on Europa!

And then, quite unexpectedly in 2012, the Hubble space telescope photographed what appeared to be plumes of material spouting from near the south pole of of the satellite. They were not seen again for a while, as Hubble was being trained on other objects in the meantime. In 2014 its eye was again turned on Europa, and between January and April that year the plumes were seen several more times. In a brilliant technical coup, images were obtained as Europa crossed the face of Jupiter and the plumes blocked light coming from the planet. The spectroscopic signatures of hydrogen and oxygen were found. The plumes were definitely water vapour.

And should any lingering doubts remain, the Cassini probe, approaching the end of its mission to Saturn, just flew through a similar plume emanating from the similarly icy Saturnine moon Enceladus. It physically sampled the plume. It was water. Enceladus isn't Europa, but at this point doubting the presence of water on Europa isn't really an option.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

Science criticizes itself. This ultimately leads to perfection.

No, it doesn't. It leads to increased knowledge and thus to truth.

If you want perfection try Miss Universe.

a reply to: Astyanax

Fascinating.

Have you been on Europa, yourself?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Nobody has. What of it?

originally posted by: Astyanax
Nobody has. What of it?

Oh, I see. And those scientists you mentioned earlier, have they not been on Europa either? Interesting.

Let me ask you this: have you ever personally travelled up to or further than 1 million miles in a single trip?

i'm a big believer in the concept of humanity having a collective memory....


the ageless idea of the Horn-of-Cornucopia where all the fruits spill out onto One's table is a really simplified version of the explanation of how material/physical goods came into being...

en.wikipedia.org...


the highly stylized "Horn-Of-Plenty" is an ancient depiction of the material Universe flowing out of a White-Hole in an Empty and Vacuum pre-Cosmos ... the Universe being born

a reply to: Astyanax

You're a smart man, Astyanax, I bet you would be one hell of chess player?

Do you think I am going where people in the past have inevitably gone before so many times? Or am I thinking more than 2 steps ahead than you predict I am? Only time will tell. I do sense via my intuition (which you probably don't believe in) that you might have had a different sensation when seeing my latest question. One you might not have had before, or at least one you haven't felt in a very long time. Am I just playing mind games? Am I a fraction closer to opening your mind by a minuscule farther than before? I guess I'll have to wait and see.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Let me ask you this: have you ever personally travelled up to or further than 1 million miles in a single trip?

The planet on which I live has travelled much further than that in my lifetime.

I trust you are going somewhere with this.