I don't think you still quite understand what scientific theory means. Much of our understanding of the world is based on scientific theories. For example without information theory we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think you are greatly underestimating the amount of knowledge we have about the ways the world works.
At the top of the last page I posted a link explaining the Milankovitch cycles, perhaps you should go read it.
We do have the knowledge at certain extent, but there's no really anything we can base the certain information, just like it's with the earth. Like, you cannot really say what's "natural" and what's not. Is our existence natural for example? Like where do you base it?
That Milakovitch cycle is a study, based on his views and once again, it's not a fact but i don't deny it might be good guess.
We do have the knowledge at certain extent, but there's no really anything we can base the certain information, just like it's with the earth. Like, you cannot really say what's "natural" and what's not. Is our existence natural for example? Like where do you base it?
That Milakovitch cycle is a study, based on his views and once again, it's not a fact but i don't deny it might be good guess.
It's my belief how we're where we're at nowdays. I don't care if it's a fact or not, it's what i believe. I don't really care whether our body temperature is "naturally" 36.5-37c, because it hasn't always been and it moulded through the evolution, to make our bodies function properly at this day.
Whether his takes are right or wrong, what i do see is Plato's cave in full display. As in you can totally tell who would have been the church and who would have been galileo out of the bunch.
We do have the knowledge at certain extent, but there's no really anything we can base the certain information, just like it's with the earth. Like, you cannot really say what's "natural" and what's not. Is our existence natural for example? Like where do you base it?
That Milakovitch cycle is a study, based on his views and once again, it's not a fact but i don't deny it might be good guess.
Wrong, it's a scientific theory. Meaning it has gone through rigorous scrutiny and is now an accepted concept that describes earths movements.
There's conclusive evidence to back up these theories, I certainly don't have the knowledge in atmospheric physics to challenge them. Based on our interactions thus far I seriously doubt you have either.
Wrong, it's a scientific theory. Meaning it has gone through rigorous scrutiny and is now an accepted concept that describes earths movements.
There's conclusive evidence to back up these theories, I certainly don't have the knowledge in atmospheric physics to challenge them. Based on our interactions thus far I seriously doubt you have either.
Of course i can question the science, that's the point of it. Based on the current information, it might be the most believed scenario, but it once again, doesn't make it a fact.
Whether his takes are right or wrong, what i do see is Plato's cave in full display. As in you can totally tell who would have been the church and who would have been galileo out of the bunch.
I find it quite funny how Galileo is nowadays used by some to discredit those who believe in science. He was a scientist who believed in scientific methods. It's people who don't believe in scientific methods that are the church in your example not the other way around. Comparing contrarians with no real knowledge of the subject to Galileo is pretty absurd.
I find it quite funny how Galileo is nowadays used by some to discredit those who believe in science. He was a scientist who believed in scientific methods. It's people who don't believe in scientific methods that are the church in your example not the other way around. Comparing contrarians with no real knowledge of the subject to Galileo is pretty absurd.
Of course i can question the science, that's the point of it. Based on the current information, it might be the most believed scenario, but it once again, doesn't make it a fact.
Of course i can question the science, that's the point of it. Based on the current information, it might be the most believed scenario, but it once again, doesn't make it a fact.
I find it quite funny how Galileo is nowadays used by some to discredit those who believe in science. He was a scientist who believed in scientific methods. It's people who don't believe in scientific methods that are the church in your example not the other way around. Comparing contrarians with no real knowledge of the subject to Galileo is pretty absurd.
Whether his takes are right or wrong, what i do see is Plato's cave in full display. As in you can totally tell who would have been the church and who would have been galileo out of the bunch.
I just like how we've jumped from mask/lockdowns, to Trump, to climate change, and then to what it really means to be a theory all within like 2 pages. It's like a speedrun attempt of the Murica thread.
I just like how we've jumped from mask/lockdowns, to Trump, to climate change, and then to what it really means to be a theory all within like 2 pages. It's like a speedrun attempt of the Murica thread.