English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i mean, don't you think that scientists just exaggerate?

2007-01-25 08:08:06 · 14 answers · asked by Seungyong W 5 in Science & Mathematics Earth Sciences & Geology

14 answers

Ok Adi, don't believe everything the scientists tell us....

The Earth was flat - you could fall off the edge!
We're the centre of the Universe!
We'd never have wireless technology.
Aliens and Ufo's don't exist.
They shoot arrows at apples on their sons head.
I still think Einsteen stuck his finger in the electric sockets to make his hair stick out like it was.
Science is constantly changing - theories that seemed probable and certain years ago are now being questioned.

I prefer to think of us like a huge Brazil nut as the inner core, with melted caramel oozing over it and a mantle of chocolate....

2007-01-25 13:56:05 · answer #1 · answered by Agony Aunt 5 · 0 1

No, scientists don't "just exaggerate." Science is based on the principle of reproducibility. What that means is that if somebody publishes a scientific paper claiming something, other people should be able to use similar methods and achieve the same result. It's not just conjecture. You come up with something and demonstrate that if you did the same experiment, you should come up with the same answer. Furthermore, people should be able to build off of your findings and come up with new research that is also reproducible.

One important thing that non-scientists have trouble understanding is that scientific "proof" isn't quite the same thing as mathematical proof. If you can prove something mathematically, then unless you made a mistake, that's the final word on the subject. Scientific proof, on the other hand, just represents the best understanding of the subject, based on observable evidence and sound reasoning. The constant refining of scientific understanding is a normal part of the scientific process.

But don't misunderstand that and think that means that everything scientific is "just a theory." There is a difference between a theory that's just an idea in somebody's head and something that has been reviewed by other scientists and been shown as a good representation of the physical world. This article in Wikipedia does a decent job of explaining the scientific process further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

2007-01-25 12:19:12 · answer #2 · answered by adamnvillani 2 · 1 0

Scientists don't exaggerate, most often the media gets a hold of a piece of information and spreads it before knowing the whole story.

As for proof that there is a mantle core and inner core, seismic mapping. Scientists know how fast certain waves travel threw certain materials and there is 3 clear levels of density.

2007-01-25 08:40:15 · answer #3 · answered by dawn 2 · 2 0

There is a lot of evidence from earthquakes. With accurate measurements around the world when there is an earthquake we can see how long it took the shockwave to travel and if it was distorted, reflected or refracted. It is possible to get an idea of what arrangement of the core might be causing these signals.

The fact that the Earth is magnetic indicates that there is a molten iron core generating the field.

2007-01-25 08:20:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Have you seen the pictures of Volcanoes?

We at least can see the function of the mantle. This keeps the core from coming out. If it breaks, we see the core, lava.

I admit, it won't help with the inner core, but it's a start.

2007-01-25 08:16:30 · answer #5 · answered by efes_haze 5 · 0 0

There isn't ovious proof that there is a mantle, but there has to be something. Besides, where do rocks come from? And if you really think about it, rocks are a hard molded substance melted together. And that's exzactly what the so called "mantle" is, a hot, lava-type substance. The inner core really is there because all it is is the earth. Soil and studd like that. Yeah, there is other stuff in it inner core, but mainly it's dirt and sand. And then again soem things are better left unanswered.

2007-01-25 08:24:27 · answer #6 · answered by k_bonine 2 · 0 3

They look at how seismic waves propogate through the Earth after an earthquake. Some types of waves will not move through liquid (they get reflected) and some move at different speeds through liquids than they do through solids.

2007-01-25 08:21:31 · answer #7 · answered by Randy G 7 · 1 0

RE: CAN YOU GIVE ME FACTS ON THE EARTH'S CRUST,MANTLE,OUTER CORE AND INNER CORE? Can you give me facts about the Earth's crust, mantle,outer core, and inner core?? PLEASE!! I REALLY NEED HELP!

2016-05-23 23:22:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Presumably scientists have research to back up their theories, why don't you go and read some of it? Or do you just automatically distrust the views of scientists?

2007-01-25 10:36:44 · answer #9 · answered by Rotifer 5 · 0 0

The proof? Hmm... Well, there's gravity, the magnetic fields which shield the planet from interstellar radiation, magma... need I continue?

If you need more proof, maybe you should join the FES.

2007-01-25 08:19:40 · answer #10 · answered by frankmoore 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers