You have to continue to operate and function with certain beliefs. Those beliefs may be very convincing and be strongly linked to evidence that asserts their validity, however rejecting any new evidence that is contradictory to your beliefs is the problem with science and many other people today. If new evidence is presented, I approach it with some skepticism, and analyze the evidence carefully to determine validity. If I find it true, I don't necessarily abandon my original belief, I just take it into consideration and weigh the new evidence against the body of other evidence and determine that my belief may be wrong, but definitely need to investigate further into all the evidence to find out if there are flaws in some of the evidence. My basic point is that I try to keep an open mind and not lash out against people without careful consideration.
Give me "new evidence" and I will consider it. ALL evidence must cohere. You don't need to lecture me about science. Read about the work of Halton Arp if you want to see "new evidence."
There is so little to doubt about the Apollo program, there is no "new evidence." Someone here already mentioned the laser and radar retroreflectors that were set down on the Moon, that are still in use today. Not possible if they weren't set there. All the cavils about the images from the Moon are ignorant of the condition on the Moon and the limitations of photography. The argument that men cannot pass through the Van Allen belts is an urban myth, disproved by their factual passage. It is exasperating. You talk like you are some defender of science, but I find that tone to be quite easily adopted by those who really do not know much of science, much less have an academic or professional specialty in it. Real science is often contrary to "common sense." As Galileo discovered about falling weights.
I understand what you are saying, but "real science" is all about questioning everything. There is nothing ever proven beyond doubt. There is always doubt. There is always room to learn more and accepted fact is regularly modified with advances in understanding. When you espouse something as an irrefutable fact, you are no longer a scientist, you are a adherent. I get that you want to throw shade about my qualifications as a scientist, and that is your right. I am not the top of my field, but I am well respected. I have worked in a research lab since 2002, prior to that I worked around the world and have visited 44 countries in my work. I am not the top in my field, but I am the top of my particular discipline. It is a very narrow discipline, so it is not as glorious as some would think, but the majority of science disciplines are extremely narrow in focus. That is the only way to get to be the best, unless you are a super genius and I definitely do not make that claim. My penultimate point is to always challenge your beliefs, accept nothing as fact beyond reproach. Keep an open mind and take care not to cast stones, because we all have built our beliefs in glass houses. The reason the Awakening is so difficult to achieve is that most people cannot have their beliefs in the facts that they know challenged. They simply state facts that they have learned and accepted as irrefutable and will hear nothing from any others unless it reinforces their currently held beliefs. I truly believe that there is nothing beyond our reach, if we can survive our own failings. We have incredible potential to achieve the impossible. It takes many lifetimes and possibly eons, if we can survive as a species, the human race will be capable of achieving anything if we can keep from sabotaging ourselves. I hope we can and will, but as I said before, there is always doubt.
You don't know much about real science, do you? Real science is often dominated by "narratives," which get more ingrained with time. Things are accepted with no doubt (such as the Big Bang) because they are convenient, not because they are true. Often because they are the centerpiece of a wonderful theory. We are bogged down in nuclear science because of this, and ever more wasteful amounts of money are thrown at expensive research projects (e.g., CERN) in the hope of justifying the underlying narrative. it is pathetic.
I tip my hat to your expertise in whatever field it is. Mine happens to be space travel, and my "beliefs" are and have been tested by practice. We design things to work, and they bloody well fail to work if our "assumptions" are not the truth. So, in that department, I don't have a glass house. It is armor plate, forged by repeated experience. Sometimes the experience is traumatic; we do learn the hard way.
You have to continue to operate and function with certain beliefs. Those beliefs may be very convincing and be strongly linked to evidence that asserts their validity, however rejecting any new evidence that is contradictory to your beliefs is the problem with science and many other people today. If new evidence is presented, I approach it with some skepticism, and analyze the evidence carefully to determine validity. If I find it true, I don't necessarily abandon my original belief, I just take it into consideration and weigh the new evidence against the body of other evidence and determine that my belief may be wrong, but definitely need to investigate further into all the evidence to find out if there are flaws in some of the evidence. My basic point is that I try to keep an open mind and not lash out against people without careful consideration.
Give me "new evidence" and I will consider it. ALL evidence must cohere. You don't need to lecture me about science. Read about the work of Halton Arp if you want to see "new evidence."
There is so little to doubt about the Apollo program, there is no "new evidence." Someone here already mentioned the laser and radar retroreflectors that were set down on the Moon, that are still in use today. Not possible if they weren't set there. All the cavils about the images from the Moon are ignorant of the condition on the Moon and the limitations of photography. The argument that men cannot pass through the Van Allen belts is an urban myth, disproved by their factual passage. It is exasperating. You talk like you are some defender of science, but I find that tone to be quite easily adopted by those who really do not know much of science, much less have an academic or professional specialty in it. Real science is often contrary to "common sense." As Galileo discovered about falling weights.
I understand what you are saying, but "real science" is all about questioning everything. There is nothing ever proven beyond doubt. There is always doubt. There is always room to learn more and accepted fact is regularly modified with advances in understanding. When you espouse something as an irrefutable fact, you are no longer a scientist, you are a adherent. I get that you want to throw shade about my qualifications as a scientist, and that is your right. I am not the top of my field, but I am well respected. I have worked in a research lab since 2002, prior to that I worked around the world and have visited 44 countries in my work. I am not the top in my field, but I am the top of my particular discipline. It is a very narrow discipline, so it is not as glorious as some would think, but the majority of science disciplines are extremely narrow in focus. That is the only way to get to be the best, unless you are a super genius and I definitely do not make that claim. My penultimate point is to always challenge your beliefs, accept nothing as fact beyond reproach. Keep an open mind and take care not to cast stones, because we all have built our beliefs in glass houses. The reason the Awakening is so difficult to achieve is that most people cannot have their beliefs in the facts that they know challenged. They simply state facts that they have learned and accepted as irrefutable and will hear nothing from any others unless it reinforces their currently held beliefs. I truly believe that there is nothing beyond our reach, if we can survive our own failings. We have incredible potential to achieve the impossible. It takes many lifetimes and possibly eons, if we can survive as a species, the human race will be capable of achieving anything if we can keep from sabotaging ourselves. I hope we can and will, but as I said before, there is always doubt.
You don't know much about real science, do you? Real science is often dominated by "narratives," which get more ingrained with time. Things are accepted with no doubt (such as the Big Bang) because they are convenient, not because they are true. Often because they are the centerpiece of a wonderful theory. We are bogged down in nuclear science because of this, and ever more wasteful amounts of money are thrown at expensive research projects (e.g., CERN) in the hope of justifying the underlying narrative. it is pathetic.
I tip my hat to your expertise in whatever field it is. Mine happens to be space travel, and my "beliefs" are and have been tested by practice. We design things to work, and they bloody well fail to work if our "assumptions" are not the truth. So, in that department, I don't have a glass house. It is armor plate, forged by repeated experience. Sometimes the experience is traumatic; we do learn the hard way.