all i can see, there is acceptance of community. I mean that this was too much effective which is also the wrong thing to me.

what I want to underline is that since there are "truths" and even though we scientists are successfull to find / find out those "truths" , they will exist and be effective.The difference will just be that we will not be able to use those truths. I mean that even though we get agreements on something the truths exist in every process regerdless our convention.

So, I wonder (and also should express my surprise that ) the reason why when some effective/known people says something, others follow without questioning.

Edited Sunday at 12:34 PM2 days by ahmet

3 minutes ago, ahmet said:

when some effective/known people says something, others follow without questioning.

This is not true.

10 minutes ago, ahmet said:

all i can see, there is acceptance of community. I mean that this was too much effective which is also the wrong thing to me.

what I want to underline is that since there are "truths" and even though we scientists are successfull to find / find out those "truths" , they will exist and be effective.The difference will just be that we will not be able to use those truths. I mean that even though we get agreements on something the truths exist in every process regerdless our convention.

So, I wonder (and also should express my surprise that ) the reason why when some effective/known people says something, others follow without questioning.

There are thing's that are true in science, the axioms; everything else is a temporary truth, or target for every scientist to shoot at.

20 minutes ago, ahmet said:

So, I wonder (and also should express my surprise that ) the reason why when some effective/known people says something, others follow without questioning.

Because they don't disagree with what they are saying. What they are saying is in line with the theoretical principles that are understood amongst the scientific community, at that point in time.

6 hours ago, ahmet said:

all i can see, there is acceptance of community. I mean that this was too much effective which is also the wrong thing to me.

what I want to underline is that since there are "truths" and even though we scientists are successfull to find / find out those "truths" , they will exist and be effective.The difference will just be that we will not be able to use those truths. I mean that even though we get agreements on something the truths exist in every process regerdless our convention.

So, I wonder (and also should express my surprise that ) the reason why when some effective/known people says something, others follow without questioning.

Firstly I don't understand why you have this in Politics.

Are you talking about the scientific method or the relationship between science and politics or what.
Please also clarify who the 'known' people are abd what their input to science might be.

If you are actuqlly talking about science leaders, then I can't see how you could consider this to be true.

Almost every province of science that I can think of is currently developing at pace, and each province boasts competing hypotheses in frontier areas.
Only the most non controvertial such as well established bodies of facts such as the structure of the alkanes or the way arithmetic works.

Further back in history over the last few hundred years there have been significant arguments over the substance of science, some furious, some even leading to torture or death.
However the further you go back the more a complicating factor intervenes. That factor is communication..
Thousands of years ago it took a long time for new discoveries to reach remote lands. For instance the spread of the modern numbering system from india, to europe.
Besides the distance separation there was also the fact that many workers worked on their own. The huge collaborative projects are a modern development. But even then 'gurus' sometimes held sway, even when they were wrong.

7 hours ago, ahmet said:

So, I wonder (and also should express my surprise that ) the reason why when some effective/known people says something, others follow without questioning.

Trust, perhaps?

It’s a rather open-ended assertion, since the amount of supporting evidence one has when they “say something” is not addressed. To the extent this happens in science, it happens in other areas, too. Religion being one that leverages it heavily

It could also be argued there is no hard and fast truth in science. There is truth to the best of current understanding. Good example that everyone is familiar with in physics is Newtons laws of inertia. Everyone firmly believed the equations applied regardless of the measured objects inertia. Later findings showed its only valid for non relativistic inertia hence GR.

I also wonder why this thread is in politics.

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by Mordred

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

It could also be argued there is no hard and fast truth in science. There is truth to the best of current understanding. Good example that everyone is familiar with in physics is Newtons laws of inertia. Everyone firmly believed the equations applied regardless of the measured objects inertia. Later findings showed its only valid for non relativistic inertia hence GR.

I also wonder why this thread is in politics.

I never know if math is considered science or not. If it is, then it is full of hard and fast truth.

Plus, regardless of the math question, isn't the statement "Earth is not flat" a hard and fast truth?

2 hours ago, Genady said:

I never know if math is considered science or not. If it is, then it is full of hard and fast truth.

Plus, regardless of the math question, isn't the statement "Earth is not flat" a hard and fast truth?

Yes I agree there are different view aqbout whqt iw scinece and what is not and this applies to other disciplines as well as maths.

As regards 'flat earth' , like so many things in nature, the issue is neither hard and fast nor clear cut.

As a rule of thumb in surveying and cartography th flat earth model is adopted for patches of the earth of less than 10km radius.

It would also seem that the OP has lost interest.

Edited 13 hours ago13 hr by studiot

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

As regards 'flat earth' , like so many things in nature, the issue is neither hard and fast nor clear cut.

As a rule of thumb in surveying and cartography th flat earth model is adopted for patches of the earth of less than 10km radius.

I disagree. You know exactly what I call "Earth" in my statement above. But you've changed the meaning of the word. It is a coincidence in English that the patches of the earth and the planet Earth are referred to by the same word. To avoid the language misunderstanding, I can clarify, "Earth, the celestial body, is not flat." It is a hard and fast truth.

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

It would also seem that the OP has lost interest.

Yes. And it is still in Politics.

Edited 13 hours ago13 hr by Genady

2 hours ago, Genady said:

I never know if math is considered science or not. If it is, then it is full of hard and fast truth.

Lol there's some debate on whether math is a science or not.

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Lol there's some debate on whether math is a science or not.

Yes, I got used to it now although when and where I grew up, it was never a question.

34 minutes ago, Genady said:

I disagree. You know exactly what I call "Earth" in my statement above. But you've changed the meaning of the word. It is a coincidence in English that the patches of the earth and the planet Earth are referred to by the same word. To avoid the language misunderstanding, I can clarify, "Earth, the celestial body, is not flat." It is a hard and fast truth.

It might be a hologram, depending on one's perspective... 😉

Just now, dimreepr said:

It might be a hologram, depending on one's perspective... 😉

Even in this case, it is not flat though.