RE: The Tao of Paradox | Part 1: The Only Thing I Know For Sure
For instance, the likelihood of the laws of physics we have discovered so far to be correct even if incomplete is quite high as we have gathered piles upon piles of evidence that clearly point in a certain direction. A the current precision of our findings is so great that the GPS satellite networks is adjusted for minuscule time dilations to allow it to pinpoint anybody's location within a few meters. That level of precision is truly extreme as just being a few milliseconds off could lead to errors in the ball park of kilometers/miles. Sure, there is always a chance that we might be off base here, but even in that case, it is safe to say that the probability of special relativity being correct is at least 95%.
I'm curious to know how you feel about the variances in recordings of the speed of light over the years and the strong evidence that it is not a constant after all.
I bring this up as an example of a fundamental variable that was, and still is by many, not considered a variable at all. It's a great example of the importance of holding onto a scientific tenet for only as long as it is not surpassed by more accurate infomation.
That's something I'm not yet aware of, do you have specific source that you might be referring to so I can check it out? Not that I can't google that, I'd just prefer to start with what you have found interesting already.
This is perhaps the most balanced thing I have found to start you off.
Beware, it contains content from Rupert Sheldrake, a figure who if you're not familiar with, ruffles the feathers of skeptics everywhere. ;)
http://www.josephvoelbel.com/blog/rupert-sheldrake-on-the-speed-of-light-and-big-g
keep in mind that i get to hide behind the fact that I don't believe or disbelieve, I allow possibility and wait for further evidence.
When it comes to issues like 'will i fall off this cliff if i take another step?', I err on the side of caution as evidence strongly suggests i will fall, however on issues like this i find it more interesting to hold back and keep exploring the possibilities and the evidence.
I don't see why we should hold out examining the evidence that's in right now to make a tentative judgment of what seems to be the case and what doesn't.
I think this is an utter and very common misconception about science, most scientists especially physicists spend their time testing out theories and questioning our understanding of reality, not defending it. No self-respecting physicist will claim that we have all the answers. The claim is always, we have all this evidence and it seems to entail this and we have this level of certainty based on the amount of data we're gathered. It's never a dogmatic postulation that cannot and should not be challenged.
LOL :P I'll check his claims out. The article you've shared talks about circumstances not substance, but the name looks googlable enough ;)