Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Altair
Belief in Santa wasn't and isn't a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a set of principles that are based on empirical observation and are established facts. Gravity is a 'theory', as is biological evolution. They're not ''just theories like Santa''.
|
I haven't implied that believing in Santa is or isn't a scientific theory have I . I simply gave an explanation of how a belief that falls upon the majority doesn't make it true . Potentially there are millions that believe the world is flat, is doesn't make it true, even when many refer to science that backs this theory up .
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Altair
a pity, because soy (and palm oil) are main causes of deforestation (SEE ALSO THREAD TITLE). IOW, directly related to the thread. OP asked if we are justified to do nothing, or not focus on this all the time. To that I say, yes and no. We can't focus on it 24/7 and shouldn't (we have a life to live) but it's still, in my opinion, good to ask where our food comes from and how it is produced, and what impact it had on the environment. This all directly relates to the topic.
Casting doubt on the science is not related to the topic and not what OP was interested in. People who have an interest in that are the ones with an agenda here. It's so obvious.
|
I didn't read it because I am not disputing certain effects that have an impact on our environmental climate change . I am just not buying into what is immediate as discussed already .
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Altair
it goes so deep ''in all fields of work'' that you happen to know all about it, and all those silly scientists either don't know it or they're part of the plot. Brilliant narrative, would make for a good plot in a work of fiction or a video game. Less so in real life. 
Not the topic. 
Maybe you could give your thoughts to the questions raised by OP. You know, talk about the actual topic?  |
There are many fields of work that contain theories built upon agendas .
I don't profess to know them all, it's just rife and have given examples .
In regards to agendas and the scientists that fall in line with the governments objectives, there can be both an alignment into believing a theory to be true and also not . Each to their own . It appears that you speculate in what I mean and then portray that speculation in a way that makes me out to be as mad as a hatter . Why do you do that?
In regards to keeping to the topic at hand, climate changes and the reasons why hasn't been to far from my thoughts .
Like said it's relevant to know that not all scientific results give a true reflection of the actual, it's not going off topic if it relates to how one comes to scientific conclusions regarding the reasons for why the climate is changing is it .
Otherwise everyone would believe everything they are told .
You don't see a government environmental theory being promoted by a scientist that says the opposite do you .
This is why I have said that certain Dr's get stuck off the list because they are not falling in line are they .
It wasn't that long ago that mainstream Dr's were saying eggs were bad for you until it has been completely reversed .
Not all information is correct is it . All the research made wasn't true . All these so called experts were not correct .
So it doesn't matter if these Dr's at the time knew that eggs or certain fats and salts were good for you or not, it depends on the foundation that they are working for doesn't it . One either follows their guidelines or they are out .
It's no different in other fields of work .. That's all I am saying . No conspiracy here . No science fiction film in the pipe line either .
x daz x
Threaded Mode