There are two aspects to this topic:
1. There were many earlier findings which were questioned, refuted, and reanalyzed to come up with new discoveries - One great example is the planet, Pluto. Another example is the concept of Relativity, which in a way, questioned Newtonian thinking. In both these examples, there were lots of debates and questions even from the scientific community prior to majority of the scientists accepting these findings.
Can these findings be changed in the future?
With access to better information and meaningful technologies, we might optimize our findings further in the future. That is one beauty of science namely to requestion, and/or rephrase questions to find better answers. It is also important to understand that there are still many questions out there for which science does not have an answer at this point in time, and hence, scientists certainly have to listen to other perspectives too.
Caveat: Recent studies suggest a drop in IQ since 1970s. If that were the case, and if this trend continues, it is questionable whether future generations would be able to come up with better findings.
2. When it comes to the topic of EPA and debate on climate science, again taking the life span of this planet, it is relevant to ask the question such as, whether the changes we are seeing forms part of the normal cycle of planet earth or due to primarily man-made events.
There is nothing wrong in having that debate as it provides different avenues to still address the core problems of rising sea level, changing weather and rainfall patterns, feeding ever increasing population, and more.
At the same time, it is not just about debating, but it is also about taking appropriate action considering the illeffects that could come with changing weathering patterns.
1. There were many earlier findings which were questioned, refuted, and reanalyzed to come up with new discoveries - One great example is the planet, Pluto. Another example is the concept of Relativity, which in a way, questioned Newtonian thinking. In both these examples, there were lots of debates and questions even from the scientific community prior to majority of the scientists accepting these findings.
Can these findings be changed in the future?
With access to better information and meaningful technologies, we might optimize our findings further in the future. That is one beauty of science namely to requestion, and/or rephrase questions to find better answers. It is also important to understand that there are still many questions out there for which science does not have an answer at this point in time, and hence, scientists certainly have to listen to other perspectives too.
Caveat: Recent studies suggest a drop in IQ since 1970s. If that were the case, and if this trend continues, it is questionable whether future generations would be able to come up with better findings.
2. When it comes to the topic of EPA and debate on climate science, again taking the life span of this planet, it is relevant to ask the question such as, whether the changes we are seeing forms part of the normal cycle of planet earth or due to primarily man-made events.
There is nothing wrong in having that debate as it provides different avenues to still address the core problems of rising sea level, changing weather and rainfall patterns, feeding ever increasing population, and more.
At the same time, it is not just about debating, but it is also about taking appropriate action considering the illeffects that could come with changing weathering patterns.
"Why I Won't Debate Science": Once you put established facts about the world up for argument, you’ve already lost.
"Science isn’t a popularity contest; if it were, I’d definitely vote to eliminate quantum mechanics, set π to 1, and put radium back in toothpaste. I really, really don’t want sea levels to rise, rainfall patterns to shift, and heat waves to intensify. Climate change is definitely not my first choice. But physics and chemistry don’t care what I, or anyone else, wants." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/why-i-wont-debate-science/
"Science isn’t a popularity contest; if it were, I’d definitely vote to eliminate quantum mechanics, set π to 1, and put radium back in toothpaste. I really, really don’t want sea levels to rise, rainfall patterns to shift, and heat waves to intensify. Climate change is definitely not my first choice. But physics and chemistry don’t care what I, or anyone else, wants." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/why-i-wont-debate-science/
Why I Won't Debate Science
blogs.scientificamerican.com
Shared publicly
Add a comment...