What scientific theories do you disagree with and why?

[PaleoEuropean]

First one for me would be carbon dating. I feel that everything that isn't hermetically preserved and even that which is; is contaminated evidence. Carbon from millions of years ago is floating all around us, from rocks, creek beds being eroded and releasing ancient soil (go look for fossils at your local creeks; you can find lots of shark teeth). Stuff like bones, wood etc is porous, it absorbs everything around it, especially if it's exposed to water.

[Ryujin]

Any theory revolving around time travel. It's physically impossible because 'past' and 'future' are abstract terms.

[Malagueña]

Go look for fossils at your local creeks; you can find lots of shark teeth

Damn I wish it was that easy here man. I remember watching a guy from TikTok that lives in Oregon or Washington (idr) and a river he goes to is full with clam fossils from literally 4 millions of years ago
But where I live almost every fucking time somebody wants to make a building and begins digging a roman archaelogical site from 2000 years ago is found man, it's ludicrous :rotfl

[PaleoEuropean]

Any theory revolving around time travel. It's physically impossible because 'past' and 'future' are abstract terms.

I would agree. I however think its possible to access the past only through resonant energy. This resonant energy would not be the actual past though, it would just be like a photograph; energy being imprinted. I think for instance that parallel universes are mostly energy/stimuli that has been captured in time much like a dream except the imprinted energy does not change but can effect and interact with our brains.

[Ryujin]

I would agree. I however think its possible to access the past only through resonant energy. This resonant energy would not be the actual past though, it would just be like a photograph; energy being imprinted. I think for instance that parallel universes are mostly energy/stimuli that has been captured in time much like a dream except the imprinted energy does not change but can effect and interact with our brains.

Yes, it could be a reflection, but you can not be physically involved in it.

[PaleoEuropean]

double

[PaleoEuropean]

Yes, it could be a reflection, but you can not be physically involved in it.

But there lies the question, what does* physical really mean? If we can sense things, feel things even if its in a dream or artificial we interact with it on a physiological level through electricity, chemical processes etc. Reality is very subjective.

[PaleoEuropean]

Excuse my grammatical errors, still early.

[PaleoEuropean]

bump

[Bender1999]

I think i depends on, there are alot of nonsense in social sciences nowadays but for natural sciences i am allways open minded.

[PaleoEuropean]

I think i depends on, there are alot of nonsense in social sciences nowadays but for natural sciences i am allways open minded.

Yea social sciences are largely based on feelings, guess work and politics. The same could be said about anthropology these days.

[Bender1999]

Yea social sciences are largely based on feelings, guess work and politics. The same could be said about anthropology these days.

A good point, i think TA takes that too serious. Imo it is more for fun than anything else, i mean some are good classifier here but the best way to explain your origins are genetics and (i know it sound corny) your feelings.

[renaissance12]

Darwin evolution because math confirms that chance is not enough to explain evolution..

[JamesBond007]

The biological theory of mental illness that mental illness is caused by faulty genes when there is no scientific evidence for this. I'm not a 'mental illness' denier rather I prefer to call such states of affairs "problems in living" and I think psychiatry is fundamentally a political project rather than a scientific one and that it has become an ideological tool of state capitalism.

[Aldaris]

The mainstream view of psychologists that intelligence is mostly set in stone at birth. Problem solving is a trainable skill just like any other. Sure, some people have a natural talent for that, but almost anyone can become pretty good. Most of the scientists weren't some child prodigies, but they ace IQ tests anyway. All due to the fact that they do logical reasoning for a living. Psychologists are good at analyzing the empirical data, but their poor theoretical background needs a revoke.

[Aldaris]

Darwin evolution because math confirms that chance is not enough to explain evolution..

Pal, don't bring up random variables when there's something called natural selection.

[Teutone]

As I1 guy

Science is a waste of time for me

[pulstar]

As I1 guy

Science is a waste of time for me

Maybe stop using internet and all that? :lol:

[Teutone]

Maybe stop using internet and all that? :lol:

I use science but I also think it sucks, its a paleothing.

[pulstar]

I use science but I also think it sucks, its a paleothing.

Kind of like when you hate yourself, but you don't allow others to hate you

[Teutone]

Kind of like when you hate yourself, but you don't allow others to hate you


https://youtu.be/Ng76fgKKhZg

[Aldaris]

As I1 guy

Science is a waste of time for me


I use science but I also think it sucks, its a paleothing.

As a R1B guy - we have both.