Science... I am lost...

[Ben Robberecht]

With more and better worldwide communication, comes a lot of "anti-science science".

Some more ludicrous than others (think of the Niburu hoax, or the "flat earthers", ...)

Some, like the Niburu collision course with Earth and whatnot cause quite a panic with some, and I consider this anti-science science to be very dangerous, for various reasons.

But, then there are these odd ones, which I have quite a bit of difficulty believing whether these are true or not.

To name one: the Atamac Creature; A 13cm tall humanoid, which was around 7 years young at the time of it's death, lacking ANY known form that could explain it's incredible small size (dwarfism, progeria, ...), having quite a bit of unknown biological material in it's DNA.

This remains was under investigation by several high placed individuals, and to be found reel.

However, around 2014, all further research in this topic was silenced, it was "debunked" by total morons (one claiming it was a toy, go figure, and this fella called himself a DOCTOR in the field of biology) as well as by more believable people claiming it to be entirely human by all means, where other evenly believably people  say they cannot figure out what precisely this thing is, or where it originates from.

 

With all information being spawned on the internet, which am i still to believe (not speaking of the obvious stuff, of course), and which not?

 

Here's another one: the mega structures like Machu Piccu and Sacsayhuaman (South America), , the GhizaValley Temple and Luxor Temple (also Egypt), and several more across the world.

Despite they all using the very same manner of lego building and using metal locking systems (which even are exactly the same over all these monuments), the entire geological community INSISTS these have absolutely NOTHING to do with one another, they are completely unrelated in any a form.

If we calculate the probability of these actually being unrelated while checking the similarities between them, as well as their location and the time in which these were build, the outcome to the equation would be... well, fairly small, where very small is probably a hyperbole on itself.

Begs the question... why do they deny this?

They see themselves as 'scientists', but they cannot ever explain why these structures are so extremely similar, and yet completely unrelated to one another.

 

Seeing all these oddities... what am I still to believe, and what not?

As things no longer seem to be defined as "true or false"....   

 

Ben

[swansont]

This isn't a conspiracy discussion site. If you want to discuss science, introduce some science. Not unsubstantiated, unsupported assertions.

[Ben Robberecht]

Erm.. either you missed my request, or you are trolling me, which is it?

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

With more and better worldwide communication, comes a lot of "anti-science science".

Some more ludicrous than others (think of the Niburu hoax, or the "flat earthers", ...)

Some, like the Niburu collision course with Earth and whatnot cause quite a panic with some, and I consider this anti-science science to be very dangerous, for various reasons.

But, then there are these odd ones, which I have quite a bit of difficulty believing whether these are true or not.

To name one: the Atamac Creature; A 13cm tall humanoid, which was around 7 years young at the time of it's death, lacking ANY known form that could explain it's incredible small size (dwarfism, progeria, ...), having quite a bit of unknown biological material in it's DNA.

This remains was under investigation by several high placed individuals, and to be found reel.

However, around 2014, all further research in this topic was silenced, it was "debunked" by total morons (one claiming it was a toy, go figure, and this fella called himself a DOCTOR in the field of biology) as well as by more believable people claiming it to be entirely human by all means, where other evenly believably people  say they cannot figure out what precisely this thing is, or where it originates from.

 

With all information being spawned on the internet, which am i still to believe (not speaking of the obvious stuff, of course), and which not?

 

Here's another one: the mega structures like Machu Piccu and Sacsayhuaman (South America), , the GhizaValley Temple and Luxor Temple (also Egypt), and several more across the world.

Despite they all using the very same manner of lego building and using metal locking systems (which even are exactly the same over all these monuments), the entire geological community INSISTS these have absolutely NOTHING to do with one another, they are completely unrelated in any a form.

If we calculate the probability of these actually being unrelated while checking the similarities between them, as well as their location and the time in which these were build, the outcome to the equation would be... well, fairly small, where very small is probably a hyperbole on itself.

Begs the question... why do they deny this?

They see themselves as 'scientists', but they cannot ever explain why these structures are so extremely similar, and yet completely unrelated to one another.

 

Seeing all these oddities... what am I still to believe, and what not?

As things no longer seem to be defined as "true or false"....   

 

Ben

Anti science science is not science, it is pseudoscience or just plain bunkum.

Science also is a discipline in eternal progress, and as yet scientists do not know everything.Theories are being updated, modified and changed all the time, as observations improve and technology increases There are still some mysteries, and unexplained phenomena, even here on Earth. 

Edited December 22, 2017 by beecee

[Ben Robberecht]

Yes, anti-science indeed is all but science.

But the initial question remains, how to filter out right from wrong...

Lately, good Sir, things become quite gray, where it used to be black or white (sort of speech).
What is right to look into... and what to ignore?

 

Thank you for answering, Sir.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Ben Robberecht

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ben Robberecht said:

Erm.. either you missed my request, or you are trolling me, which is it?

You cite two examples of alleged scientific inquiry without any citations or links, and make some assertions that are similarly unsupported.

that's insufficient to generate a discussion. One can't tell you who to believe, or evaluate the quality of sources, if you don't provide any.

[EdEarl]

I think you should ask a different question, "What should I believe?" If you haven't investigated something, how would you know whether it is bunk or reasonable? In most cases you must depend on others. Make sure more than one person has investigated the thing, and get as many opinions about it as possible.

If it smells, it is probably crap.

Edited December 22, 2017 by EdEarl

[beecee]

35 minutes ago, Ben Robberecht said:

Yes, anti-science indeed is all but science.

But the initial question remains, how to filter out right from wrong...

Lately, good Sir, things become quite gray, where it used to be black or white (sort of speech).
What is right to look into... and what to ignore?

 

Thank you for answering, Sir.

Science is basically governed by the scientific methodology.....ask questions...for an hypothesis...research...experiment...observe.....check...communicate results...repeat experiments. 

Pseudoscience is dtected by the following means...excessive use of physcobabble...anecdotal evidence...claims that are unable to be falsified...absence of peer review.