I am fascinated by the new discoveries and enjoy that it’s a new piece to our anthropological history.
However when I read pieces like this I tend to think, “Now up until five minutes before this confusing evidence was discovered, you would have been mocked endlessly to be the least bit skeptical of scientific theory put forth.”
I read somewhere that science is the new religion and I really think it’s true. It’s wonderful to solve scientific mysteries. However when you except scientific theory in a blind faith way, you are no better than the ones you mock for believing in God.
So, when have I done that?
No, not you Sunken Civ! Just an observation I’ve made from my Skeptic Society functions and such. I was simply musing and pondering.
Any idea we accept "in a blind faith way" might be considered a "new religion."
But a true scientist is not supposed to accept anything "in a blind faith way."
Do they?
Certainly not that any of them would admit, at least in their own areas of research.
But how many of us fit the definition of "a true scientist"?
Probably zero.
We are merely the curious and somewhat informed public. We don't know which scientists are honest and which frauds.
Indeed, the scientists involved could well be 100% honest, but being written up by a totally corrupt "journalist" only interested in advancing his/her own agenda -- whatever that might be.
Point is, whatever we may or may not accept "in a blind faith way," may not be the scientific work itself, but rather a journalist's propaganda.
Or maybe the journalist is trying to do the scientist a favor by hyping the results to get more research funding.... and so on.
In due time, perhaps years later, other scientists will study, attempt to repeat the results and decide for themselves what is valid and important.
These second and third looks may just stir up more controversy.
Or they could help reach a new understanding.
As the interested public, we should take note, but also take it all with a grain of salt.
It's just the way real science works.
As a practicing physicist, I can tell you that this is complete and utter HS. You can challenge accepted theories with impunity provided you can provide evidence that they don't add up. To do so, however, requires new and convincing data, and not just the same tired old shibboleths always raised by the so-called anti-Darwinists, whose view of science is that it is just one big conspiracy theorist.
Some things will be harder than others. If you want to suggest that Newton's laws of motions for ordinary matter at ordinary velocities are wrong, or that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated for large systems in quasi-equilibrium, then you have a very high hurdle to leap over.
If you want to suggest that the fossil record is incomplete, everyone would accept that. If you have your own additional fossils to add, located, moved, preserved and evaluated in accordance with accepted standards of professional practice, they will be admitted easily enough. Indeed, if you have new diagnostic techniques for learning something from your own fossils or someone else's that will be accepted too, though it will be incumbent upon to you show that the new technique is reliable and provides value.