Recent content by m00st

You should've assumed I know that science is universal and that there is only one way to do science. Volt and Watt are not an accurate comparison to "science". It's actually very far from strange. Science uses the Scientific method, there is only one way to do this method. Therefore terminology...

That is where you make the mistake... Science doesn't have "terminology" it's universal (unless you are uneducated in how Science works). Chances are that the scientist in India is doing science right if he was educated on how to do science (scientific method). Therefore every scientist you know...

I'm essentially asking for opinions from people who love science, and have to deal with incompetence from normal non-scientific individuals.

That is not science... I do not know how to say this but please educate yourself on science; and on how to do science. Let me just say this; if things you think up in your head do not qualify as science unless you can give testable claims. Lab results are a must (this does not mean literally in...

Wrong; the evidence is abundant. Assuming it was faked without any evidence why it was faked especially when the evidence points otherwise only shows ignorance. One example of evidence is universities test on the lunar rocks from the Apollo program, saying it is fake means a world wide...

We are not discussion that; we are discussing science which uses peer review to validate objective reality. Obviously whatever you think up in your head or believe cannot be tested unless you give lab results among the many other requirements for what is defined as non-pseudoscience.

To bring this back on topic... What do others feel who are extremely scientific/skeptical when science is questioned for it's accuracy in certain facts that are discovered through science? No I am not saying that science cannot be questioned, nor am I saying that sciences job is to discover...

Such as? If it cannot be tested then the reality is only in your head. As cynical as that sounds it is the truth; that is the strength science brings.

They are models that aren't 100% accurate as nothing in science can ever be 100% accurate (that is what math is for). However, is the heliocentric model less accurate than the geocentric model? No. How much more accurate is the model? Considering the Heliocentric model has brought GPS...

Empirical facts are things such as evolution, heliocentric model, moon landing, etc.

Although not all the time; empirical facts answer our questions on objective reality. One example is the heliocentric model vs. geocentric model. The abundance of facts for the heliocentric model makes heliocentrism an empirical fact. The evidence is so great as I stated before that questioning...

We are not discussing if man has landed on the moon. The evidence for man doing so is abundant from NASA, JPL, etc. We are discussing why people take the superstitious alternative; the way to spread disinformation or make a conspiracy out of such achievements in history.

Yes but that doesn't answer my question. Why do some out right deny these facts after seeing them?

Misread your reply... I agree but the evidence for the moon landing is abundant. It's not about authority; fortunately. It's about questioning discoveries, and making breakthroughs, not following like a sheep.

Empirical facts are determined by peer review. The biggest peer review journals are Science and Nature.