1.61803 writes:
So it does come down to who or whom we find believable.
We can not fact check every source on a story by story bases.
I typically don't. I am guilty of appeals to authority in these matters. I put my "faith" in those who I believe wont get the story twisted, or skew the evidence.
In the end it does come down to personal choice on what we will believe.
I agree, I do this many times myself.
The additional point is to simply note that this is
not science.
Honestly acknowledging to ourselves when we are and are not "doing science" makes it much easier to identify when we should and should not cling to our personal ideas on any specific issue.
I also personally hold many ideas that do not align with actual scientific thought.
I hold the personal idea to try and be a good person all the time.
However, scientifically looking at my record, I make a lot of mistakes. Therefore, scientifically, I will likely make more. Therefore, scientifically... I cannot be a good person all the time... so (scientifically) I shouldn't even try. I should only try to be good most or just some of the time.
But... there is a difference between my desire to be a good person and my scientific ability to actually do such.
Identifying and understanding the difference between these too aspects helps me to clarify my
motivations for being a good person against my
physical abilities. This clear separation allows me to pick apart my physical abilities easier and therefore I can improve certain physical abilities that would not be apparent otherwise. For this reason... I continue to hold the idea of trying to be a good person all the time for my motivation while relying on scientific observations to let me know how I'm doing and where I need to improve.
There's nothing wrong with not doing science.
There's only something wrong with not doing science and then trying to force a "scientific label" onto it. This can only lead to confusion and error.
It is also quite possible for a scientific theory to not be "correct."
That is, the woodpecker may very well exist. But perhaps the repeatable observations are unattainable for some reason or another.
Therefore, the scientific theory that these woodpeckers are extinct would be factually wrong. However, it would still be a "correct
scientific theory"... because scientific theories are based on repeatable observations. And, according to those, the theory is still correct.
This is a known flaw.
It remains, however, that the scientific process is still the
best known method for learning about reality. It's correct-enough and not-wrong-enough for us to build the amazing infrastructure and space travel and computer technology and all the crazy-awesome stuff we see all around us. Because of these obvious results... we use the scientific method for important stuff even though it's possible that it's wrong. If a method ever comes around that is impossible to ever be wrong... I'm sure it will replace the scientific method rather quickly. We just haven't discovered that method yet.
In conclusion:
bluegenes has stressed that he is making a
scientific theory... which then gains or loses confidence depending on the repeatable observations of reality. Which, so far as I've ever been made aware, entirely support his theory with great confidence.
The fact that bluegenes' theory is a correct
scientific theory does not mean that it's impossible for SBs to exist.
It means that SBs do not exist according to the best method for accurately describing reality that humans have ever developed (so far).
Whether or not that means anything to you personally depends on you're own personal character.