You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The End Of Reason: A Glimpse Behind The Curve
Some scientists disagree with you. That is the thing that should be talked about. Don't ignore those scientists who disagree with you.
Some scientists disagree with you. That is the thing that should be talked about. Don't ignore those scientists who disagree with you.
Of course, it's not science if some don't disagree, and nobody who disagrees is ignored.
Instead what we do is look at how they disagree, so for instance one scientist might say that a piece of rock is 4.5 billion years old, and he then presents reasons why, namely that he has measured radioactive isotopes in the rock that indicate its age.
Then we look at the method of dating, and conclude that indeed the decay of whatever isotope he is monitoring is stable, and we do that through observation.
Then another scientist comes and says I disagree, at that point we ask why?
If the scientist casts doubt on the original method, demonstrating via experiment that the method is flawed, yet can't come up with their own method, then we say, hmm, he appears to be onto something.
If however the new scientist comes along and says I disagree, yet doesn't provide any concrete reasons as to why he disagrees, then we say well, until you can articulate why, then we'll just carry on doing it our way.
That might seem like we're ignoring you, but we aren't, we are merely waiting for you to come up with some kind of evidence, because after all, we're scientists, and evidence is King.
Cg
They do disagree and they provide not only concrete reasons but also concrete evidence for the actual age for certain things through a variety of means. The fact you are not talking about it may mean that you do not know what I'm talking about which means you do not know the full story, the whole story, because you're not talking about it.