The scientific community must be wrong by definition if science is to learn something new. It’s more than proven that things most scientists find absurd and impossible end up being doable and proven.
I’d give this person more leeway. He’s not reading astrology, he’s working patterns and clearly has not determined whether his research is accurate yet or not. He himself says there’s not enough data in some regards.
So what is your resistance based off outside of reflexive skepticism ?
This has been debunked over and over [1][2][3][4] and is by no mean different from fortune telling. He has not published a single paper nor has detailed its method, which is summarized by various sources as making a lot of predictions about earthquakes in regions that are known to often have earthquakes. Most of these predictions end up wrong, but we only talk about the "right" ones.
[1]: https://www.newarab.com/news/arab-osint-platform-debunks-dut...
[2]: https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2023/02/did-earthquake-guru-frank...
[3]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6469019/Top-Austral...
[4]: https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/01/dutch-earthquake-enth...
Are there many examples besides quantum physics? And eventually and in quite short time, they made their way into the mainstream science, because they modelled the world better. So if this guy can show that his approach can reliable help with predication of earthquakes, he will win. Simple as that. So far I am not convinced, but sure, the moon and the planets are a real force.
That’s not say you should defend bad science. Just that great Science might appear like nonsense - at first.
His opponents were not scientists, but priests.
Resistance against evolution likewise. Fueled by religion, not science.
And tectonic plates was just a theory among many, with unclear data at that time. Pasteur likewise.
Real scientists also made mistakes, more so when their reputation is based on the old theory. But in general if there is a new theory that provides a model that works (its calculation fit reality), then it will be adopted. I don't know of a case where this did not happen.
Just saying that anyone who says “there’s resistance in the scientific community” can be right or wrong. The COVID vaccine rollout and subsequent confirmation of large amounts of vaccine injury was certainly a good case study. Happened just 24 months ago. There was lots of “resistance” until the papers confirmed a lot of what the naysayers were saying on day 30, but the papers arrived on day 300
I was just quoting his own Twitter feed where he himself indicates this is not scientifically proven.
He apparently calls it research. I'm personally fine with that and followed him before it was said here he predicts this based on planetary influences (and hadn't noticed it myself).
I know that and I’m just commenting his claim; I’m not attacking you in any way.
For the record, I hate this out-of-hand dismissal of anyone who asks "What if..." about anything outside the current Overton Window.
What in the world is an "antibeliever?" I find it kind of telling you chose this phrase instead of anti science.
For example, people who say Bigfoot or aliens are absolutely not real and anyone who believes in such is clearly a loon rather than saying "It's unproven and seems extremely unlikely."
maybe they should be called a firm believer, then?
like, in science?
the opposite here is the default until you prove your thing true and the default false