I’ve been thinking about launching a second blog for quite a while. The topic would be facts, or insights that are widely disputed or misunderstood amongst the public, yet important and known to be true. I believe I have identified hundreds of such facts so far. These facts and insights are not seriously disputed amongst the experts and scientists in the relevant fields and the evidence for their veracity is overwhelming. Therefore, verifying the accuracy of these facts and insights should not be difficult, just ask the respective expert community. However, finding the best way to express and explain these facts, determining whether they are important, and verifying that they are widely disbelieved may be more difficult.
One example of such a fact is that the Earth is a lot older than a few thousand years old (6,000 or 10,000 years old). Despite the fact that the scientific community states that Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that humans evolved over millions of years a 2019 Gallup poll, showed that 40% of US adults believe that God created humans in their current form within the last 10,000 years. The evidence from a large variety of scientific fields, biology, geology, paleontology, physics, astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, etc., contradicts young earth creationism whilst the attempts to discredit the old earth narrative have fallen short.
The reason for wanting to do this is not to prove anyone wrong, but because it is interesting, and it provides a growth opportunity for everyone including myself. In the past I believed false facts and I probably still do. Discovering these and learning about why you most likely are wrong could sometimes be unpleasant at the same time as it is an opportunity for growth and an opportunity to better understand the world. I am hoping to make the site interactive. Readers can suggest such facts, politely dispute my assessments, and add evidence. However, I should say I would like to avoid politics.
When I was a teenager, I believed that Earth and the Universe was 6,000 years old, and that evolution was a hoax. I read young earth books that appeared scientific, and which presented a long list of objections to the established scientific narrative. My religious background had something to do with it, but I also thought that I had the scientific facts on my side. I was interested in science, and I got accepted to “Naturvetenskaplig linje”, a Swedish high school program for students with good grades and who showed aptitude for science. This program was like taking lots of AP classes in math/calculus, physics, biology, and chemistry, and it prepared me well for my university level studies in engineering physics and electrical engineering.
In physics I learned about radiometric dating. Sure, that topic had been mentioned in the young creationist books as well, but they had insisted that radiometric dating was unreliable, and they had suggested that radioactive decay rates might have changed. Now I learned why radiometric dating was very reliable, why radioactive decay rates remained constant, about the physical laws involved, not to mention the facts that highly sped up radioactive decay rates would have resulted in not just a very radioactive world, it would have forced changes to physical laws that would have broken the world. In thermodynamics I learned that the claim that the second law of thermodynamics contradicted evolution was based on a very simple, in fact silly, misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
From astronomy and astrophysics, I learned that it takes 100,000 years for light to travel from the inside of the sun to its surface. I learned that distances between stars and galaxies were thousands, millions, and even billions of lightyears, yet we could see them. How can we see a galaxy whose light has been traveling for 10 billion years if the Universe is only 10,000 years old? The young earth answer to that was that light might have travelled at a much faster speed in vacuum in the past, neglecting the fact that the speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant that is part of a lot of formulas E= mc2 (energy content of mass), the ratio of the electric and magnetic force, time and space formulas, the size of black holes, Einstein’s gravitational constant (strength of gravity). 10 billion years versus 10,000 years means that the speed of light must have been a million times faster, gravity a trillion trillion (septillion) times weaker, and according to E = mc2 99.99999999% of the Universe’s energy must have vanished.
As time went on every single claim that the young earth creationist had made fell apart. In other words, knowing some science made the young earth narrative not only untenable but silly. To be honest with myself I had to give up the young earth belief system. Naturally, the universe could have been created yesterday, our memories could be implanted, and we could all be dreaming like in the Matrix. Science isn’t 100% certain, but some beliefs are much more plausible than others.
Young earth creationism wasn’t the only time I had been bamboozled. I think because I have a fairly strong science background combined with the facts that I have been bamboozled and I have accepted that reality, and the fact that my interests are so wide makes me a good candidate for launching this type of blog. I would like to present the fact and instead of arguing just give the reader a basic and understandable overview of the evidence with links to reliable sources. The reader can then sort it out for themselves. Again, I am hoping to get some help with suggestions and growing it to eventually thousands of examples/posts. Then I want to select, let’s say, the 100 best ones. Below are some examples of what I am interested in.
- We know that the world is a lot older than 10,000 years old and yet many dispute that.
- Evidence for evolution is strong, evidence against it is lacking, something many don’t know or deny.
- We know that economic externalities are real (market failures), yet market fundamentalists are unaware of this.
- Someone creating a duplicate account of you on Facebook does not mean you were hacked, yet many make that assumption.
- Wind power is not a major cause of bird death. Fossil fuels and cats are a lot worse (hundreds of times).
- We know that homeopathy does not work, yet it is widely used.
- Global warming is real and is known to be caused by us, yet many deny this.
- Plastic is not a big environmental problem for the US.
- Poverty, violence, child mortality has been sharply reduced worldwide to the surprise of many.
My question now is what should I call the blog? Super Facts, Deep Insights, Eye Openers, Transformative Facts, Bamboozle Medicine, Big Memos, ….
Leonberger Life 
I would love to read such a content, Thomas! Blessings*
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much Susana. I really appreciate it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would be extremely interested in such content. I studied history and majored in it so I’m a fan of facts (although the history we learn isn’t always factual). I was never good at the sciences but I always enjoyed learning facts about the world/universe.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think history is very interesting. I believe history probably contain a lot of those kind of facts and I certainly would be interested in suggestions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes and a lot of those facts we don’t even know about or learn about. There’s so much I only learnt in university.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve read many history books but I don’t have any education in the subject. Leisurely / self guided reading is very different from university level studies. I have a lot to learn and I am looking forward to doing so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This sounds great, Thomas! Whatever you call it (and of course my cheeky self can’t help imagining something like Rollover Facts as a wink to your beloved Rollo… lol), I’ll look forward to reading! : )
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ha ha Rollover Facts is a very clever name. Thank you Stacey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good idea, Thomas! You write so clearly, I think you would do a good job with it. As for a name, my daughters like a history podcast called Your Wrong About. Maybe you could do something along those lines. Best, Ben
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much Ben. I have to check out “Your Wrong About”. It sounds very interesting and maybe I can steal ideas.
LikeLike
A tough theme, Thomas. Many have tried, but in the end, who is the arbiter of facts? Truth? It’s a crazy world.
There’s a series I enjoy where a guy goes on college campuses, makes a statement (for example, “There are only two sexes”) and then adds, “Change my mind.” That always made me listen to both sides.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Jacqui. I am planning to make it easy for myself. I am not going to compare scientific theories, and the associated explanations, hypothesis and lots of facts. I am just going to compare simple true/false facts that are clear, not vague, and that already have been pretty much settled by the relevant experts/scientists but not (yet) among the public. There are things we do know, as well as things we don’t know, and I will avoid the latter. Then I explain why we know something by showing the evidence in some sort of pro-con table. I’ve noticed that people who hold beliefs contrary to scientific/expert consensus typically don’t know or understand much about the evidence, like in my case with young earth creationism. I am also not planning to get into lengthy discussions with people, a good pro-con table with links (and that might be updated) regarding this type of fact should go a long way.
The change my mind guy sounds very interesting but I am planning to do something that is easier.
LikeLike
I like your blog idea, Thomas 🙂 Tough topics which should make for some lively comments. I am of the mind, I like to be proven wrong, if what i think is incorrect, and am always learning. I would think the areas you could dive into would be limitless from a scientific prospective.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes you are right Denise. I’d love to change my mind to when shown to be wrong (I think).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this is a great idea for a blog!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much Charles
LikeLike
I like the idea. How about a title like Did You Know. You could then start off each post with Did you know the Earth is older than 10,000 years but 40% refuse to believe it (or something like that.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is a good idea that I will think about. Thank you John.
LikeLike
😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love the idea of this new blogging direction, Thomas. I also love John Howell’s idea about the title, “Did You Know?” Also, I keep intending to ask if you are on Twitter or Facebook? If so, where can I find you?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Jan. Yes I also think his “Did you know?” idea was a good one. I am not on Twitter but I am on Facebook. Let’s see if we can find each other: https://www.facebook.com/thomas.wikman.98
LikeLiked by 1 person
With your scientific bent and logical mind, it doesn’t surprise me! It sounds very interesting!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much for your kind words Dawn
LikeLike
Despite scientific evidence, I expect people will continue to believe their conspiracy theories. You make a valid point about sometimes we change our views after acquiring more knowledge. That’s what learning is. I expect you will get a healthy amount of debate. Unlike other forms of social media, people are typically respectful on blogs, so I hope that remains the case.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Peter. I think you are right, but as you say, in some cases new information and evidence that you did not know about can make a difference, but you have be willing to change your mind. However, I am going to focus on being fun and interesting and not worry so much about critics who does not have valid evidence. If they have good evidence, that is a different story. Like you say I expect commentary here to be more civil than social media.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lots of interesting information I think Thomas you could discuss in your new blog for sure..
One question I would ask, is How do you know homeopathy doesn’t work..? for I know it works for some people..
I think you should call the blog what your instincts tell you to Thomas, after all it is your blog .. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much Sue for your encouragement.
About the homeopathy, first there is no known scientific mechanism behind it and the process of homeopathic dilution and the diluent/water remembering the original ingredient contradicts scientific knowledge (physics/chemistry). No homeopathic preparation has been shown to be different from placebo in the various statistical studies. Individuals can always claim that it worked for them, but that is not good evidence. Placebos can cause people to say the same thing. Studies, on the other hand, can sort this out and despite homeopathy having been around for hundreds of years no medical properties have ever been demonstrated in any study. If I post about this, I will explain more and provide links.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much Sue. I just ordered The Journey, by Brandon Bays. I am looking forward to reading it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure you will not be disappointed. Xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
True, it may not be understood or proven scientifically in clinical trials, but that’s different from saying it doesn’t work, when it can for some people, yet science can’t get it’s head around how..
Not all things can or have to be proved by science to make it so. As we will see in the not too distance future.
You only have to look at my Own Raynauds cure.
Now, how would science prove that? They couldn’t. But I knew what cured it.
I do love these kinds of conversations, Thomas.😉.. So please let us know when that new blog of yours is up and running 😆😊🙂🤗✨️
I would love more enlightening conversations 😍. As you come from your scientific thinking and I from my spiritual one. As left brain meets right lol 😆 😉😉
Have a great weekend.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maybe I need a less blunt title like “homeopathy has not shown to have any healing properties in trials, yet it is widely used”. However, the problem is not that science doesn’t understand homeopathy. That science doesn’t understand something is OK. That’s just an opportunity to expand our knowledge and is good news. The problem is that studies show that homeopathy makes no difference compared to placebo.
There are things like, for example, spontaneous remission of cancer when a malignant tumor disappears without medical treatment. Luck, a positive attitude, the placebo effect, an unknown cause, can result in healing. A person’s physical or mental health can improve after taking a fake treatment, or “dummy”, such as a sugar pill. How do you know the cause of the improvement? The way to know if it had anything to do with a particular medicine is to see in studies whether taking it makes any difference compared to placebo. If it doesn’t have a statistically significant effect, then it is the same thing as drinking a little bit of water or taking a sugar pill. The fact that the explanation given by the practitioners for how homeopathy works makes no sense doesn’t help but the studies are the crucial part. There are many things we don’t know and don’t understand, but when studies show that taking an alleged medicine makes no difference, then that is something we do know.
Your experience with regression analysis was a particular thing that happened to you. Science can’t explain that, but that’s OK. However, clinical trials have not been done to show that it doesn’t work, and I doubt doing so is even possible. So, it is not the same thing.
However, homeopathy is just on my 100+ suggestions list. I need to read up on it more and verify that is for sure rejected by the medical community before I make a post about it. But like you said it is an interesting discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think MIND over Matter also has a lot to do with healing in general too Thomas… Some people I have read up on like a boy with a brain tumour, the medical profession said it was hopeless, and in operable, he went home and played a video game and in that game when he zapped the enemy in the game, he was mentally zapping the bad cancer cells of his brain tumour..
When he went back for scans his tumour had shrunk and later it vanished… So Yes lots of variables to be considered.
If ever you get the chance to read a book entitled The Journey, by Brandon Bays… Her story another one of those self healing miracles.. 🙂
Thank you Thomas for that great reply x
LikeLiked by 1 person
And I forgot, have a great weekend you too Sue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Thomas, and you too 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find it very interesting, a very original idea. Congratulations on this great idea, Thomas.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much for your kind words and encouragement Tomi.
LikeLike
An interesting idea, Thomas! I’m sure, people would like to read such topics. It will give an opportunity to discuss the issues. A topic which immediately comes to my mind is whether lab grown meat has any health issues.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much Kaushal. Lab grown meat is a very interesting topic that I had not thought about yet. However, I have to check if the science says something specific about it that is not in dispute scientifically and yet controversial among the public.
LikeLiked by 1 person
hello! how are you? bloging takes a lot of time. i’ve got 3 blogs and i’m thinking of writing less often during next monthes. have a nice day!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I did not know you had three blogs. That is a lot of work. I will see how I will manage with two. Have a nice day you too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds quite interesting, Thomas. Most scientific arguments are not as potentially controversial as the one you discussed here. Some of those (rare) examples may cost you readers. That shouldn’t stop you from pursuing your interest though. Especially since you expressly state your desire is not to be confrontational.
One of my posts was offered in this vein. “Errors that Seem to be True: Angels” — which explained the biblical truth dispelling the common misunderstanding that people die and then become angels.
Just beware, lots of people resent having their viewpoints, or even their superstitions, challenged.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, you are right, some of these may be controversial, at the same time I am hoping readers might be able to consider incorporating them into their belief system and worldview rather than see them as a threat to their worldview. If the scientific evidence is solid you have to be able to deal with that. It can’t hurt learning a bit more about the evidence. The article/post you linked to was very interesting and insightful. Thank you for showing it to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The new blog idea sounds interesting. I like the “Deep Insights” title. Like you, I was introduced to those “Creationist Science” books as a young person and the ideas appealed to me, but yes, you soon start to realize there are a lot of problems. To me, the Bible’s creation story is poetry about the formation of the universe and humankind and not meant as a literal manual.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is quite interesting that we have similar experiences with that. What you say I think is a very good way of viewing it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fascinating idea for a blog! I would subscribe, for sure. 🙂 As for the title, how about Facts and Fallacies? Whatever you name it, it will be interesting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much Debbie. That is really kind of you. I think that is a great suggestion for a title.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That kind of blog would interest me, Thomas, since I’m sure that I’m misinformed on a lot of topics and I love to learn. You’re interest in science, and your scientific approach, makes you the perfect person for sharing information. Beliefs are often more emotional than logical, and in those cases, the facts don’t really matter (a discussion I frequently have with my dad who is baffled by human beings). I imagine that some people will feel threatened by the facts you present, but if you state up front that comments must be respectful or they’ll be deleted, you should be good to go. And Debbie’s suggestion for a title is great. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much Diane. You are right, we are often more emotional than logical. I also expect to learn new things. And keeping It respectful in the comments is going to be important. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m looking forward to it if you decide to go forward.
LikeLike
Thank you so much Diane. I will go forward with it, in a few weeks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Thomas, I think that such a blog would be very interesting. I would enjoy it. Based on my experience of blogging (things others have blogged that are a bit controversial), I would present the facts with the support to prove a specific point rather than negating a belief especially one that emanates from religious beliefs. People get very wound up about religion. This is just my personal view though. I do believe the earth is very old and I have been to Sterkfontein and other caves and sites that display fossils from thousands of years ago. There are such fossils in the Karoo in South Africa that pre-date the Jurassic period.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much Robbie. I agree with you. I would avoid opinions, politics, and religion and just focus on the specific fact itself and list the evidence. I would also only bring up facts that are not disputed amongst experts/scientists in the subject and then let people decide for themselves. I would make it easy on myself. Arguing things that are truly controversial is like quicksand.
LikeLike
Yes, that is what I was trying to say tactfully, but you are already there – smile!
LikeLiked by 1 person
this sound like a good idea because I had thought about how many paradoxes we face in life ..and usually it is not either or..it is “and”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for your support Samuel
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m a bit late to the party, but I would be so interested to read your second blog on subjects such as this.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much for your support Kymber
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think a second blog would be a great idea for you! It would be an outlet for you to express yourself on different topics or with another voice! You got it in you!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much for your kind support thesimlux.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting stuff! I do not dispute that the world is approximately 4.5 billion years old. I tend to believe the science. But that amount of time is hard to wrap my brain around. Maybe it makes people feel less significant which is okay with me. Since I look for good news for my Tuesday post, it does not surprise me that Poverty, violence, child mortality has been sharply reduced worldwide. The mainstream news media would not inform us of that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes you are right 4.5 billion years is a very long time. 750,000 times earth age according to young earth creationists and 820,000 times the length of recorded human history. There is plenty of good news people are not aware of because good news is seen as boring news. For example, we no longer talk about the ozone hole because we have reduced the emissions of ozone depleting gases by 99.7% and the ozone hole is healing. That’s good but not very interesting news if we are looking for sensation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Knowing that the ozone hole is healing is very interesting to me. It gives me hope, and I want to ask, what can we learn from this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Montreal protocol in 1987 was an important step. I think that we can learn that if we address the problem, for example, with some sort of regulation or international agreement, we can solve or imrpove on environmental problems. With the sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide problem causing acid rain we required scrubbers and other countries used fee or a tax to get the emissions down. They are down by 95%, and even though the problem still exist, it is much better. That’s another one we speak less of today, because we made progress.
LikeLike
As a STEM/research science student, I think your blog idea is both fascinating and essential. It’s so important to bridge the gap between what scientists know and what the public perception, especially on topics that are often misunderstood. I really appreciate your approach of presenting clear, evidence-backed facts without pushing an agenda. I’m excited to see how it develops and would love to contribute by suggesting topics or joining in discussions. Best of luck!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much for your kindness Nicole, and I would love if you could contribute with topic suggestions and information. I am going to need some help. I am hoping to get going with the new blog at the end of June or beginning of July. I hope it will turn out well.
LikeLike