Oh, we are most certainly on earth. I might be crazy, but I'm not that crazy!
I really am a heartfelt fan of sagan, and fellow lover of science. I detest simulationism the same way he would have if he had lived to see it.
Where do you hypothesize we are?
I am a bit of a stickler meseeks. I do not use the technical vernacular of science incorrectly, and I encourage others to do the same. Sadly, the colloquial definitions of those words that the vast majority of us learn are wrong. I don't have any hypothesis. I have a conclusion bore of exhaustive research and scientific (and the history thereof) study.
This is one reason I started the discussion in regards to evidence, not speculation (the colloquial and incorrect definition of hypothesis).
I have evidence to support that we are not on a "dot" in the cold vastness of "space". That the nature of the world and universe we are taught under the guise of science (from childhood) is in fact pseudoscience/religion and directly contradicts with science and scientific law.
As sagan would agree, if it isn't consistent with natural law or experiment - then it isn't science - it's wrong.
The posit that we are a small dot in an "infinite sky vacuum" is some of the most mind numbingly stupid mythology humanity has ever concocted. And that is a truly impressive achievement, considering the competition. It is also wholly incompatible with science.
The mythology, "taught" from childhood through rote under the guise of education and science, does not have no purpose or impact on society however...
What do you think? Any interest in learning more, or disagreeing? AMA!
Let's go brotha, I'm open for discussions
Rock and roll!
First, let me say that sagan is right about what he is saying here - and nothing I am going to say below will alter that.
What would you say/think if I told you I had evidence that we are not, in fact, on that dot right there?
I'm listening, Where do you hypothesize we are?
Oh, we are most certainly on earth. I might be crazy, but I'm not that crazy!
I really am a heartfelt fan of sagan, and fellow lover of science. I detest simulationism the same way he would have if he had lived to see it.
I am a bit of a stickler meseeks. I do not use the technical vernacular of science incorrectly, and I encourage others to do the same. Sadly, the colloquial definitions of those words that the vast majority of us learn are wrong. I don't have any hypothesis. I have a conclusion bore of exhaustive research and scientific (and the history thereof) study.
This is one reason I started the discussion in regards to evidence, not speculation (the colloquial and incorrect definition of hypothesis).
I have evidence to support that we are not on a "dot" in the cold vastness of "space". That the nature of the world and universe we are taught under the guise of science (from childhood) is in fact pseudoscience/religion and directly contradicts with science and scientific law.
As sagan would agree, if it isn't consistent with natural law or experiment - then it isn't science - it's wrong.
The posit that we are a small dot in an "infinite sky vacuum" is some of the most mind numbingly stupid mythology humanity has ever concocted. And that is a truly impressive achievement, considering the competition. It is also wholly incompatible with science.
The mythology, "taught" from childhood through rote under the guise of education and science, does not have no purpose or impact on society however...
What do you think? Any interest in learning more, or disagreeing? AMA!
I'm following you for the most part, it's similar to how we don't really hear about "Atlantis" and various other "myths" of history.
It's written by the victor so it makes sense.
So what do you reckon we are?