If it's greater than 95% confidence, most papers say it's legit.
Question for D&D players: How often do you roll a "1" on a 1d20? Have you ever rolled a one twice in a row? More papers are published each quarter than are rolled in your D&D game. A double-1 is "peer reviewed and doubly confirmed".
Science is not meant to be believed in. And anyone who says so is a shyster and a liar. Science is about proving things wrong, not proving things right. Science does not say "if you sit in a chair, you won't spontaneously phase through it". It says "we can't reject the theory that a chair will not let you phase through it". That is the most concrete conclusion science can make: That it can't say "no, that's wrong" to an idea. It can never say "yes, that's right".
And that's something that I think even so-called "scientists" forget all too often. The most concrete thing it can say is "maybe". We assemble enough strong "maybes" to view the world, but we strictly speaking have no way of knowing if they're true. Does gravity exist? Some postulate no, if you look close enough. Can matter be created or destroyed? Yes, in fact, though that's a recent discovery. Which proves the point, because "matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form" was being taught as a Law as recently as last decade. Now it's "Energy cannot...", with matter being a form of energy. (Or is it Force? Sorry, translating here...)
If it's greater than 95% confidence, most papers say it's legit.
Question for D&D players: How often do you roll a "1" on a 1d20? Have you ever rolled a one twice in a row? More papers are published each quarter than are rolled in your D&D game. A double-1 is "peer reviewed and doubly confirmed".
Science is not meant to be believed in. And anyone who says so is a shyster and a liar. Science is about proving things wrong, not proving things right. Science does not say "if you sit in a chair, you won't spontaneously phase through it". It says "we can't reject the theory that a chair will not let you phase through it". That is the most concrete conclusion science can make: That it can't say "no, that's wrong" to an idea. It can never say "yes, that's right".
And that's something that I think even so-called "scientists" forget all too often. The most concrete thing it can say is "maybe". We assemble enough strong "maybes" to view the world, but we strictly speaking have no way of knowing if they're true. Does gravity exist? Some postulate no, if you look close enough. Can matter be created or destroyed? Yes, in fact, though that's a recent discovery. Which proves the point, because "matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form" was being taught as a Law as recently as last decade. Now it's "Energy cannot...", with matter being a form of energy. (Or is it Force? Sorry, translating here...)