- #1
ougnala
- 6
- 0
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01-the-biocentric-universe-life-creates-time-space-cosmos/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
philnow said:"The farther we peer into space, the more we realize that the nature of the universe cannot be understood fully by inspecting spiral galaxies or watching distant supernovas. It lies deeper. It involves our very selves."
Do our ego's need a check or what?
Pshock92 said:That article is 100% philosophy.
Pshock92 said:I can understand the point they are trying to make: we see the universe as our bodies are meant to. There could be total other things around us, but our eyes are incapable of seeing them.
It's like, whose to say that an apple is red? Would red still exist if we all suddenly went blind? Or, are we seeing the apple incorrectly? Maybe the apple is really blue, but our eyes see it as red.
That article is 100% philosophy.
No, the scientific community relies on evidence-based research and peer-reviewed studies to form conclusions. If an article is not supported by these methods, it is not considered valid in the scientific community.
This article may be considered "baloney" because it lacks evidence, is not supported by other studies, or makes claims that are not scientifically sound. It is important to critically evaluate articles and their sources to determine their credibility.
No, a single article is not enough to disprove a well-established scientific theory. Scientific theories are supported by a vast amount of evidence and have been thoroughly tested and validated by the scientific community.
To determine the credibility of an article, it is important to consider the source, the author's expertise and credentials, the evidence provided, and if the article has been peer-reviewed. It is also helpful to read articles from multiple sources and compare the information.
It is important to approach articles with bold or controversial claims with caution. These claims should be supported by evidence and have been thoroughly tested and validated by the scientific community. It is always best to critically evaluate the claims and seek out additional sources for more information.