Astronomy. “Small” big errors. Science as the king. Forever! No matter what! (really, everything goes!!!)

49 Lib, a relatively bright star in the southern sky, is twelve billion years old rather than just 2.3 billion. For many decades, researchers were stumped by conflicting data pertaining to this celestial body, because they had estimated it as much younger than it really is. Determining its age anew, astronomers have now successfully resolved all inconsistencies. (1)

Astronomy. The “science” where making a… “small” correction of just 400% is considered simply…

OK. And why not?

After all, it is science!

And in science you can say whatever you want. Based on “data” and “proof” of course. And then you can change what you said! Based on… data and proof again of course! And then you can… Well, you get the meaning. All it matters is science. Not evidence, which seem inadequate. Not even proof, which seem not to prove anything. Just say the magic word: S-C-I-E-N-C-E! Yiiiihhhaaaaaa!!!

READ ALSO:  Life… Death… Night sky full of stars…

Oh, by the way. What I just wrote is wrong. And I will change it. Over and over again. Because I thought of something else. And then I will change it again because… Well… You get the meaning. H-A-R-M-O-N-I-A P-H-I-L-O-S-O-P-H-I-C-A!!!! J

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Comments (


  1. Longi

    I know it might be mind blowing for you, but that’s how science works. We find new data and we have to change our hypothesis. Unlike religion, where you don’t change your hypothesis even if you find out that you are wrong.

    Also, was this article written by a child? Because it surely seems that way, from the “proffesional” way they are writing. Is this the deep level of philopsophy that I should expect from this site?

    1. skakos

      Thanks for the comment. Yes, I know this is how science works. But you completely missed the point of the article, which has nothing to do with what you say (which is Science 101 by the way). The article refers to the way scientists can claim almost anything and then change everything without anyone raising an eyebrow, while at the same time “religion” to which you immediately referred to is criticized for the slightest error. And no, a 400% change is not how science “works” – because at the end a 400% correction is not a correction at all. It is just another way to say “We didn’t know what we talked about in the first place”.

      PS. And no, this is not a philosophy article but a rather raw sarcastic exposure of the way science is now the new religion. (it was supposed to be obvious, but I guess I should put more exclamation marks…) Search the site for philosophy articles if you wish, you will find many.

      1. Longi

        The problem is that you have absolutely no knowledge about how the scientific process works, so the only thing you can do is make uneducated claims. Science is a self-correcting process, and at all times other scientists are trying to criticize and prove each other’s hypothesis as wrong. Only hypothesis that are thoroughly peer reviewed and approved become theories.
        And naturally when our technology gets better and we make new findings thanks to that, then of course we will correct our knowledge.
        Please educate yourself on how these processes work, and you will see that it is fundamentally different to how religion goes about this. Religion simply states “this is how it is, magic caused everything, and you better believe it”.
        Religion always takes questions that we have no answers to, and slams magic and God in there instead of providing a logical explanation. Did we already forget about how Christians persecuted Galileo Galilei for telling the truth? Science is definitely not the religion 2.0, and you saying that just shows your complete lack of understanding. So once again, please educate yourself more before spreading misinformation like this.

      2. skakos

        Let’s talk about facts here, not about who is educated and who is not. (believe me if we count the number of degrees and diplomas I and you have, you will not want to mention that “educate yourself” sophistry again)

        Yes, as I already said the scientific process is about self-correction. But this does not mean that it can say anything regardless of data and understanding of specific natural phenomena. When you make a “correction” of 400% it means that in the first place you had major gaps in your understanding. If scientists publicly and openly admitted these gaps I would be gladly by their side now. But they did not. Instead, what they claimed before the “correction” was as arrogant as what they claim now, after the “correction” – i.e. that this is how it is and we scientists now “know”. See the difference? It is not that subtle for you not to grasp. It is as raw and intimidating as a 400% “correction”…

        PS. And religion does not even discuss about natural phenomena – its scope is much different than that of science.

        PS2. The case of Galileo Galilei is interesting. Do you know that he did NOT provide any single proof or shred of evidence for what he claimed back then to be the truth? Funny that you brought it up… Aren’t you educated on the case?

      3. Longi

        This article is nothing more than pathetic angry outburst. Do you think that mocking science (in a very childish, delusional and wrong way) is the way to go? I thought you christians were all about love and Jesus. Instead here you are, spewing hatred. Isn’t that very hypocritical?

      4. skakos

        I am not mocking anything. I am just against scientism (which is not “science”).

      5. Longi

        Yeah, you are against your stawman version of science, which indeed is not real science.

      6. skakos

        Again: Saying that scientists don’t know something is not at all a bad thing on its own. Making claims and then “correcting” them by…. 400% is…

    2. Longi

      Oh boy, you really seem focused on the number 400% aren’t you, like that’s gonna add any weight to your misinformed ranting.

      1. skakos

        And you actually seem really focused on not wanting to comment the 400%…

%d bloggers like this: