What is Something Scientific that you just don't believe in at all?
EDIT: Let's cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We're not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don't believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I'm sure almost everybody has something to add.
You're viewing part of a thread.
If my answer wasn't a scientific disagreement, what would you call it?
A conspiracy theory, what would you call it? Because you've provided zero scientific facts that you disagree with, nor any scientific background for your claims. It's just simply "I don't believe X happened."
I said "I don't adhere to this having happened."
Everyone else says "I do adhere to this having happened."
That's called a disagreement.
The disagreement in question is whether or not there was a moon landing in 1969.
You also say I've provided zero scientific facts that I disagree with.
Is the moon not scientific?
You also say I've provided no scientific background.
First off, you can't prove a negative, and second, there's as much history involved as there is science.
Also, nobody said you couldn't also call it a conspiracy theory, though I'd wonder how you define those.
No, you're disagreeing with a historical event in living memory, not a scientific claim. You're purporting a political conspiracy. As in, you believe that the US government has conspired to fake an accomplishment, and the rest of the world was either duped or complicit.
There's no scientific disagreement whatsoever here. If there is, spell it out for me. What scientific claim are you disputing? "The moon is scientific" is meaningless. So is literally everything if you want to spin it that way.
There’s no scientific disagreement whatsoever here. If there is, spell it out for me.
I think both the fact a lot of us are discussing science here and the fact it was on Mythbusters proves it's silly to say it's not of a scientific nature to mention it. It's certainly more scientific than many of the other things on this list, such as humans fighting grizzly bears and mothers co-sleeping with infants.
Or to put it another way...
in living memory
You remember being on the moon? Or are you saying you remember it some other way and that doing so invalidates me like it's the same thing?
So I ask again because all you can do is deflect: what scientific claim do you disagree with?
While you're at it, Google the phrase "in living memory." You just can't help but make up anything that suits your argument, can you?
The scientific claim I disagree with is the one claiming that we made ourselves capable back then of reaching the moon. As if that wasn't what I said in my original comment (and hence ironic I'm seen as deflecting).
As for your other request...
What does this change, or what do you think I made up?
That's not a scientific disagreement. You're making a positive claim that the moon landing was faked. Not until right now have you claimed that we lacked the technology to accomplish that claim, and even that isn't a scientific disagreement. That's a primarily political disagreement about a feat of engineering.
And you were the one that quoted me saying "in living memory" and then making up your own version of what I meant by that to argue against.
I pity anyone who has to interact with you in real life.
So was it wrong then to assume that by "living memory" you meant the definition of living memory? A definition I gave above, as per your own request? When it came to that, the only thing I asked was about the differentiation between directly and indirectly, otherwise I was going by said definition. I was also going by the definition of "scientific", whilst anyone who says a "feat of engineering" does not fall under "scientific" is not. Neither did I say the scientific shortcomings were technological in nature.
To not believe something does not necessitate being a positive claim, it is the aversion to one, as per the OP's question, which nobody else has issue with seeing as fitting their criteria, and neither am I out to convert anyone to the belief, it's a simple example of me disagreeing with the scientific community (in this case NASA) on something, so you asking me for proof provided by me and then being dissatisfied when it doesn't meet your standard of what constitutes proof is your problem, not mine, which negates and perhaps even reverses your last sentence, especially as that too is not outside the criteria of the OP, which not only doesn't exclude even subjectively concluded answers but openly condemns what you are doing right now with singling me out when it requests everyone be chill towards each other.