Replies

but the intricate details are always being challenged.

My problem is with the way the big components are rarely challenged and even rarer those challenges taken seriously. There is quite likely some large piece of the puzzle being missed because such larger challenges are dismissed. Those are exactly the sort of conditions that many of the great scientific minds challenged and in doing revolutionized our thinking. Someone today might laugh and say but those old guys did not have REAL evidence that, for example, the world was flat. Sure they did. 20/20 hind sight we know that stuff was worthless but THEY thought it was evidence just as we think the same of ours now. It is pure arrogance to think we have it all figured out to the point where BIG challenges to the status quo are not needed.

My problem is with the way the big components are rarely challenged and even rarer those challenges taken seriously. There is quite likely some large piece of the puzzle being missed because such larger challenges are dismissed. Those are exactly the sort of conditions that many of the great scientific minds challenged and in doing revolutionized our thinking. Someone today might laugh and say but those old guys did not have REAL evidence that, for example, the world was flat. Sure they did. 20/20 hind sight we know that stuff was worthless but THEY thought it was evidence just as we think the same of ours now. It is pure arrogance to think we have it all figured out to the point where BIG challenges to the status quo are not needed.

Who were these thinkers of the past who thought that the world was flat? FYI the fact that the world is approximately spherical has been established by those who cared to investigate the shape of the world for over 2000 years, and its size has been known for that much time too.