Soumendra Nath Thakur
05-05-2024
What I mean is, I don't always take lightly everything that is written and taught and recommended in science books. I have no god in science.
Rather, if such writings raise doubts in my mind, I prefer to use my own understanding of science to verify those writings with conventional scientific findings.
I will then publish research papers in reputed journals identifying those writing errors, providing correct solutions. They include, for example, curved spacetime and time dilation - these are irrational imaginary propagandists. These are clever disregards of classical mechanics.
Science is not political majoritarianism. Therefore, majority and popularity are not standards of exact science. What famous scientists say is mostly correct but not always correct and not free from falsehood. Science allows them to be falsified.
Is not the above statements a means of thinking and analysing science? As it separates the standard of science accurately from personal opinion, perceiving and researching and examining findings and suspicions of truth and error. It is a way to demonstrate one's reliance on the accuracy of science statements and data and to follow scientific standards. Accordingly, evaluating cited writing raises questions about accuracy and is a way to ensure it. This is an important part of scientific inquiry in general, helping to confirm the quality of one's ideas and knowledge through one's own observations. This is a common way to ensure accuracy in science by raising questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment