you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]pyropulse 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

As someone pursuing a physics degree, there is so much dogma here. I've presented data that contradict 'accepted view,' and they call you a quack and refuse to look at the data.

This is how it works, and the study of paradigm shifts is well known. The 'old guard' laughs and clings to the old, until the mounting evidence completely shatters the old paradigm, thus allowing the new paradigm to enter

Scientists are humans with biases; there are very few that actually live up to the ideal standard

I've looked at some 'alternative' hypothesis that explain the data far better, but my peers literally think of it as flat Earth stuff and refuse to look

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Scientists I've talked with tend to have this stupid belief that they are enlightened compared to the stupid people in the past, certainly I'm happy that we have a better understanding of the world than or forbearers but the hubris to assume we have it right simply ignores that those before also thought they had it right and thought so fervently.

Hell the big bang theory itself was crafted by a Catholic to counter the mainstream scientific view at the time that the universe had existed forever. And the name of the theory was mocking it for being silly. Then as time went on more and more scientists gravitated towards it and it became the mainstream model.

But in light of new data models must always be adjusted or abandoned for better models. A good scientific education should cover many different models. Yes including the flat earth model as well, since it's historically relevant.