Sun Research Yields Unexpected Results

Syberghost writes "There are two major theories about the composition of the Sun. One says that it has similar composition to the planets. The other, that it has enriched levels of oxygen-16. NASA has been doing research on the soil samples Neil Armstrong brought back from the moon, to determine which of those theories is correct. Today, we have the results; they're both wrong. It looks like we're going to have to look more closely at the composition of everything in the solar system to figure this one out."

Comments

Science is a religion because...

[tjstork]

Science is a religion because science is done with the faith that knowing more about the world will make humanity better, and better is a subjective term. Some would even argue, scientists in particular, that all science has done is teach us how to destroy the planet and each other, so, what's the point?

Experiment refutes scientist's idea.

But the experiment did not refute anything. Science is doing this any more and is relying far more on inferential arguments. The guy's experiment is 300 micrograms of lunar soil being used to characterize the composition of not one, but two celestial bodies. You call that science? If were asked to do a nitrogen sample in the average back yard, I would take thousands of times that in dirt to figure out where the fertilizer actually needed to go, or if you needed it at all, and those samples would only be good for your little back yard. You call this smidgeon of data falsifiability as to the composition of a star and an almost planet? If that's science, no wonder people buy into TV preachers instead.

Bottom line is, people buy Toyotas because they think they are a better product than GM cars, and its GM's fault, not Toyotas. People buy TV preachers instead of scientists, because of who? Scientists need to work on their credibility, and saying the moon is a certain way because of a sliver of a sample is another apalling example of how exactly not to do it.