It only goes back to 1880 and stops at 2000. That is too small of a sample.
Crichton, in his book, explained this.
Crichton, in his book, explained this.
Hello; Afraid you missed the point or chose to act so. Of course the authorities of that time are not quite the same as today.False analogy.
Clearly anyone who believed that the Earth was the centre of the solar system, let alone the universe, hadn’t done much (if any) observation. Once proper observation began, the truth was revealed. Note well that religion didn’t like the idea much.
So, it was religious dogma, being spouted by ignorant people, that permeated what was “known”. The worst part is, they’re still doing it (Spouting ignorant nonsense that is).
Actual observation and measurement proved the accepted idea to be wrong.
Guess what all of the relevant scientific fields have been doing for many decades now? That’s right, gathering data and evidence, formulating theories, testing them and then presenting the math that backs the ideas.
They’ve been overturning what the previously ignorant people (all of us) thought to be true.
Is it dogma that gives us graphs like the one below or is it the result of decades of observation, experiments and physics?
Seems to me that if it were dogma, the margin of error surrounding each gas wouldn’t exist.
In fact, if it were dogma, the scientists could just make things up. Just invent numbers out of thin air. No need for research, just fill the voids in our knowledge with whatever you prefer to believe. Right?
Ok, I can cite a book that shows the opposite. How do we discern the truth?Read the book, he started out trying to prove it was real and came up with the opposite.
No, I understood your point quite well.Hello; Afraid you missed the point or chose to act so. Of course the authorities of that time are not quite the same as today.
Another analogy I like to use is when someone tries to tell me the 2nd amendment of the USA means we should only be allowed single shot muzzle loaders since that was what the founding fathers had. I contend that if modern weapons had been around they would have had them. They had the most high tech available for the time.
My point was that the majority in charge had a view they favored. It just also happened it was a time when religion and government were pretty much the same thing. So yes any authority of the time had a religion component.
I have seen and read of how in todays setups some figure a modification of what is called "science" has become a belief system of sorts, but that was not my point either.
Anyway the point I was making is the truth does not necessarily lie in a consensus. It can if the consensus is about the truth. Truth can also be had by an individual with the correct idea today just as a very few with telescopes many years ago. I am not arrogant enough to think I can personally outdo a slew of paid scientists. I can look thru the literature and published data and see for myself. I use to be a decent shade tree mechanic partly because I could figure out a mechanical system. Not so good at the modern stuff, but I am still learning.
No, I would find the cherry picked evidence that suits the authors conclusions.Shakes head.
If you would open your mind long enough to read the book you would find all the evidence in reference form along with the sources.
Or maybe I meant the scientists who worked for Exxon back in the day?You mean the paid by tax payer hacks.
You do know all this was started in the 60's by Al (I invented the internet) Gore.
He took it as his life long political mission.
do one better, go call a bunch of flight schools and tell them you want to learn how to fly but not land. With any luck you'll make new friends fast.I think I'm gonna Google how to fly a plane, and then tell the FAA they have absolutely zero idea what they are talking about You know, cuz "research"