Comment on "Theory" of Evolution (SMBC)
onion@feddit.de 2 weeks agoIn the details or the fundamentals? Because Physics has the tiny problem that if our gravity models were correct, that would mean that we don’t know where like 95% of our galaxies mass is
janus2@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Both details and fundamentals. And when the fundamentals get questioned things get dramatic. In like, an irritating way that reminds me of religious zealotry, uuuuuuugh
The "where is 95% of all the mass!?" seems a bit more dramatic in the grand scheme of things though, damn
bastion@feddit.nl 2 weeks ago
This. The institution of science is deeply biased towards the established knowledge base - partly due to monetary interests, partly due to ‘simple’ social inertia, like when someone doesn’t want some kid to come up with ideas that may invalidate things they have seen to (seem to) work.
Like with magnetohydrodynamics - it’s useful for modeling some things, but depends on the notion that space (as in, the interplanetary and interstellar medium) is either nonconductive or infinitely conductive - which simply isn’t the case.
Plasma cosmologists have made some really nutty assertions. However, ideas should be treated on their merit - and some of what they theorize has a lot of solidity. But in general, it’s treated with derision, because (admittedly) it also traffics in unicorns.
If someone who purports to traffic in unicorns also traffics in the Principia Mathematica, it doesn’t invalidate the latter.
vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
One eulogy at a time, if you are of the Kuhn persuasion.