“Settled Science”
(twitter.com)
Comments (33)
sorted by:
Ah yes "settled science" like the sun orbiting the earth in Galileo's time.
Like thalidomide being "safe" back during its use.
Like lobotomies being "humane" when it won a Nobel Prize.
Apt example given RFK Jr's aunt was lobotomised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy
"Robert F." being RFK Sr, who was assassinated in 1968 when RFK Jr was 14, 5 years after JFK who was assassinated in 1963.
Kennedy family doesn't have a pleasant history.
She died in 2005 at the age of 86, having spent 63 years 'incapacitated'.
That's inhumane torture -- being forced to exist within a shell and not have your right mind or any way out of it. Pure hell.
Oh, but it is settled science. How dare you question that!
These people are evil, the same people who back then were pushing lobotomies are NOW pushing kids mutilating themselves forever. Hopefully, in 10-20 years time you will hear constantly about the abuse these people have suffered at the hands of doctors and parents who pushed them into sterilisation.
Or more recently- oxycontin being “less addictive”
or bextra/vioxx/fenfen being safe.
As a modern example, “dark matter” was proposed as an explanation for the observation that galaxies weren’t spinning the way models predict they should be. But after decades of searching for dark matter, no candidate particles (for example, “wimps”) have been found.
So, maybe the initial hypothesis is wrong. Maybe it’s not dark matter. Maybe the answer is “mond” (modified Newtonian)
Isn’t that cool? When science gets something wrong, we correct. We move forward.
…but, for some reason, which makes no sense at all but trust me on this… if you refuse to bend the knee and accept global warming and dismantle your entire economy to “fix” it …. For some reason that stops astronomers from considering other explanations for dark matter.
QED
I recall learning about dark matter; possibly on NOVA or another program. It was s sort of magical presence that made a lot of other theories and calculations work. I also remember the narrator made it sound like "settled science" because they were so sure they were on the way to proving it at the time.
Also, it looks like String Theory hasn't made much progress since I read books about it almost a decade ago.
Dark matter is a pretty reasonable guess to explain a very clear observation.
You’ve seen animations of the solar system, right? The inner planets are wizzing around really fast, but the outer planets are going quite slow. A galaxy should work the same way. But when you measure the speed of stars at various distances (using red shift and blue shift) the speed is a lot more uniform.
So, something is missing. Maybe red shift/blue shift doesn’t work the way we think it does. Maybe gravity doesn’t work the way we think it does. Or maybe there’s a lot of extra mass we can’t see.
For a long time (and mostly still today) people thought the most likely explanation was missing mass. We know there are particles we haven’t discovered. The discovery of the neutrino happened just like this: an experiment got a strange result, and someone proposed a new particle to explain it.
But with the neutrino, they came up with a clever way to test the hypothesis, and when they did, they found neutrinos.
Actually, I suppose a similar thing has been done with dark matter. Given the hypothesis called dark matter, they make a prediction: light should bend around galaxies a lot more than it would otherwise. They set out to find examples and it took the resolution of the HST to finally find any. “Gravitational lenses” they’re called.
But unlike with the neutrino, this doesn’t give us any insight into what dark matter actually is. So, people are still open to other possibilities. MOND is one.
Brane theory is the latest one I've heard.
I thought "Dark Matter" was just mass in distant galaxies that didn't reflect light? At least not light that travels a bazillion light-years anyhow. That makes sense to me.
"Distant Galaxies" = lolz! Like there's any other kind?
Yes but for it to cause the effect we see with galaxy rotation, there would have to be an absolute shit-ton of it; way more than any theory predicted.
Every type of matter that is floating around out there gets incorporated into stars. The reason for this is that there’s nothing special about the process that makes stars. It’s just a gravitational collapse. It can’t select for one type of matter and exclude another. So for example, if carbon atoms are floating around, they end up in stars. Make sense?
We can use spectrographs to get the proportion of different types of matter in stars, and (with some adjustments for the age of stars) the proportion that should be in the rest of the galaxy.
But then, based on the anomalous spin, there must be a lot more - a lot more.
Or, theories of gravity are wrong, or maybe the speed of light isn’t constant. There are several possibilities, but “missing matter we can’t see” is definitely the simplest. It’s just that, after all these years we haven’t found it.
there's no such thing as "settled science", you lunatic.
The fundamental trait of science is skepticism.
For liberals is just BeCaUsE I SaId sO
Anyone who uses the term "settled science" has no understanding of science.
Trooning kids is also ''settled science'' according the ''experts'' in the USA.
They are evil. It's a cult. It's surprising how professional healthcare workers are quick to bend the knee to anything proclaimed by their authority figures.
Most unscientific sentence I've ever heard in my life...
If it WERE settled? It would be a Law Of Science.
You can question LoS all you like! They are bulletproof! Go ahead, make my day.
And when a Law is found to be incorrect? They modify it, say why & that's it: done.
They don't alter past data to "make it work" they alter the theory. Leftists do the opposite of this & demand we pretend they aren't lying to us.
I can't think of any LoS that have been changed, but there must be some.
you'd have to find a scenario where the law doesn't apply, which would make it a theory.
Damn. That is some real strong cognitive dissonance right there.
No. That is literally how science works. That is actually science.
Let's see how she enjoys a freefall from a helicopter without a parachute.
When we find her broken body on the ground and she's got her last gasps of air we'll ask her if it was 10 metres per second per second or 9.8.
Whatever she answers we'll just accept as gospel fact and continue on with that as we progress.
Or at least that's what we'll tell her on the way up.
The Scientific Method requires permanent questioning and testing to find the truth.
If, during inquiry, The Science can't stand up to the Scientific Method, then we must acknowledge that is either untrue, or a metaphysics.
I can't imagine how an AI model could even define "science" with all of the different ways people use the word like her.
If The Science was settled during covid, then why did you tell us that The Science evolved? And then why did you tell us that when you made constantly changing and contradictory policies that you were moving at The Speed of Science? If The Science is settled, then why did it change? If The Science evolved, what pressure forced that The Science to become unsettled in it's previous environment?
Alternatively, you're just liars and should be criminally prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
They spent how much time claiming black people are different from white people medically speaking. That they needed separate studies, methodology, medicines, treatments, etc. And yet these people threw a shit fit when RFK Jr. suggested black people needed a separate vaccine schedule.
How much of the resistance to alternative vocational training is based on the unfortunate reality that our high schools would more or less be telling black kids to become garbage men?
And yet the current state of affairs is even worse.
Yet another ideological idiot for our purview.
Popular opinion: we do need to freeze them in place
That's when science slips into ideology. Many such cases
"Settled science" is an oxymoron.
Why is her last name Hassan.
It's especially sad that they say stuff like this when our understanding of disease is possibly the weakest of any topic in science, and potentially the most malleable.
WOW! She's a fucking IDIOT!
IQ = 90? Maybe? There is no such thing as "settled science". ALL science, even Laws Of Science are open to question & future modification.
If being "questioned" freezes you in place? Maybe your theory was shit to begin with, eh?