posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 12:07 PM
Originally posted by whatsecret
It might be insignificant to you but to me it's a very confusing contradiction.
When I told you to prove that NIST is right you said that it is impossible to prove somebody right, you said that's not how science works. You told me
that I need to prove them wrong instead.
But then you said that any competent person should be able to prove himself.or other scientist to be right without any help from anybody else. So
which is it? Can you prove NIST right or are you not competent enough to do that?
You can never prove a (scientific) hypothesis or theory to be right. It is only possible to prove it wrong. So you can, for instance, prove NIST to be
wrong. It seems to me that proving NIST wrong was the subject here. As far as I know the truth movement does not have a hypothesis of their own. Nor
does any individual truther. I am not sure what part confuses you exactly. I won't be asking you to prove the work of a 911 researcher to be right
when you post it. At most I will ask for evidence. Instead I, or more likely someone else, will prove it to be wrong. Unless of course it can not be
proven wrong, in which case it will automatically not be scientific to start with.
One side note, when I talk about people proving they are right, it is not the same as proving a scientific theory is right. Its two different
contexts.
Anyway, my main argument still stands. If you are a competent scientist you do not rely on NIST to prove them wrong. Nor do you rely on them to come
with your own hypothesis and the science to support it.
edit on 2-9-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)