So you're suggesting that unless a belief or understanding remains static, it shouldn't be considered worthy of exploration? Can you provide a few examples where unchanging beliefs have always been absolute truths throughout history?
While I understand that perceptions of credibility can vary, entities like NASA are typically recognized for their rigorous scientific research and data analysis. Should we disregard such organizations entirely, or is there a way to scrutinize information without dismissing reputable sources altogether?
As for climate impacts, do you believe that human activities have no impact on the environment whatsoever? Should all environmental changes be categorized as purely natural phenomena?
1. NASA made it to the moon, so at least that end result was actually accomplished
2. While we all know that innovation takes TIME and MONEY, at some point, when there are no tangible results, then reality says it must be evaluated for a scam . . .
. . . that is where I am with clean energy efforts . . . it is about TIME for MONEY to run out from the gubment . . .
The end result of true clean energy is a golden goose worth chasing IMO. I guess that's where we all disagree. Is there corruption and greed intertwined in the effort? I'll answer that with another question: are humans involved in the effort?
One day there will be a breakthrough.
It's true that NASA's successful moon landing shows us why it's important to keep exploring and updating our beliefs based on new evidence. Just like how NASA's achievement changed our understanding of space, our views on important issues like climate change also need to evolve as we learn more from scientists.
Think about how early settlers might not have believed we could land on the moon or even fly in airplanes. Back then, those ideas probably seemed impossible or weren't even thought about. But with research and new discoveries, our beliefs about what's possible have changed a lot. That's why it's crucial to listen to scientists and update our beliefs based on what they learn, especially when it comes to big challenges like protecting our environment."
As for your question about research funding, I'm curios as to your thoughts on where that money and research should be spent or do you feel we have reached the limits of our advancement as a civilization?
. . . no doubt that there is definitely room for fair evaluations on both sides . . . I tend to be more conservative and skeptical of those using OPM so my bias says its been long enough . . . others may be more lenient in that respect and believe more time and money should be afforded . . .
How did fires stop and start without humans?
How did species go extinct before humans arrived on the scene?
How were people able to read before electric lights were invented?
How did rivers change course without human intervention?
Just because a process is natural does not mean that humans cannot accentuate those natural processes.
There are currently 20 users browsing this thread. (3 members and 17 guests)