The science I look into is a search for a potential reality from what is natural about what, who, why and where we are and what is within.
What makes you think that the scientists that you're bashing aren't doing exactly the same thing?
Because the one's I'm having a pop at and questioning for what I'm arguing against, are not being wholeheartedly legitimate, in my honest opinion.
A lot of it is basically nonsense passed off as reality...again, in my opinion.
However, I have no issue with the real scientists who are attempting to find the truth and those who do actually do something positive.
Sometimes a story told is not the real story. It can be a fictional adaptation of the potential truth...or the actual truth.
In a nutshell, those at the top get the real script and we get the revised story from it.
Why?
Because we can be fooled into anything by following that narrative. And we are on a regular basis, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't regard science as memorising made up nonsense because questions cannot be answered using a potential reality.
Neither do actual scientists. Granted, there are theoretical scientists thinking up a bunch of stuff that can't be proven, but there are a lot of applied scientists studying real phenomena like atmospheric pressure and gravity.
Like I mentioned above. Some will tell the truth but it will be disguised by a fiction.
Do you think that Newton, Einstein, Hawking and countless others toed the line and did what they were told?
I believe they will have, yes.
Then you truly have no idea of who they are and what they contributed to science.
You're right. All I have is what's told and shown. The same as you.
All you know about their contributions are what you were told.
Your truth is based on the story you accept as that truth, but as above, stories are not always truthful.
There are reasons why they're on a pedestal but not all of those reasons are legitimate, in my opinion.
They are on pedestals because the dramatically changed the way that scientists look at the world.
Maybe in some.
The story tellers and writers decide the scenes of history. We can only mimic from memory after revising them.
Here's something for you...and I believe it's pertinent when considering this science and who is legit or not.
How many books have you read that were clearly fictional writing's?
You know, the books you bought or loaned that you clearly knew were fictional stories, yet you bought them to read and most likely enjoyed because it was a well thought out story.
Are you starting to get my drift?
This is what we are up against but the problem is, we are not told from which shelf the story books come from. Fact....or......fiction. And yet the same fact and fiction stories can be easily jumbled up on those shelves, so although you read some that say fiction, they may be based on fact. Those you see as fact may be easily based on fiction.
The so called science world is nothing more than this. It's littered with possibles, probables, truth's and lies.
Some are much more easier to spot than others.