He's still pushing his Thunderbolts Electric Universe pseudoscience site.
[thunderbolts.info]
[thunderbolts.info]

This time I think he purposely chose one of their less controversial topics to minimize the backlash. But as you noted, the title is misleading -- it makes it sound like Science never or seldom self corrects when it does in fact self-check the vast majority of the time.

And I'm still not sure why this is taking up space in an astronomy group.

@RichCC It may his site and he needs visitors to get advertising.

@RichCC

This reply to your comment is not an attack. I agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

Science all too often doesn't self correct.

There are three primary categories of science. Formal, natural and social. Formal sciences are not required to follow the scientific method. This is why, from the 1950s into the millennium, quantum physicists believed in randomly moving particals. It is also what prompted Albert Einstein to state, "The math is impressive, but the science is questionable."

You have probably heard of the Big Bang Theory, but did you ever hear of the Big Bang Hypothesis? Of course not. Hawkings called it a theory from the word go. He was a quantum physicist.

There is a difference between astronomy and astrophysics. Your right, the scientific method argument does not apply to astronomy, but it strongly relates to astrophysics.

Many physicists no longer believe the Big Bang. For the past decade and half. Quantum physicists have been calling out for multiple dimensional space and time relationships. Each new idea they call a theory.

@EdEarl
Thunderbolts.info is not my site. I’m retired and have donated some of my pension money to it.

“Science is self-correcting” is a metaphor and you read it literally. Non-metaphorically, it might be something like “In science, people make mistakes and other people can correct mistakes.”

@yvilletom Of course it's a metaphor, and not precise as scientists try to be. If someone is going to criticise science they must play according to rules scientists use, or be criticized themselves. In fact, scientists are very critical of each other, which is why inexact science tends to be corrected.

For example, Newton invented calculus and an equation for the effects of gravity. That equation can predict the future position of almost every body in the solar system, except Mercury with very good accuracy. Einstein's theory is more accurate, but it doesn't totally explain gravity. Someone else may finish the job, or we may never know.

@RichCC You asked why this is taking up space in an astronomy group.

If you will look at this group’s most recent six or more “pages”, you will see several discussions of astrophysical, rather than astronomical, topics. So kwitchurbellyaching.

@yvilletom I just counted. 6 of the last 9 posts are from you.
Maybe you should start your own Group -- 'All Things Pseudoscience ' or 'All Things Thunderbolts Electric Universe'. Lol.

Yes, the stuff of headlines and even articles. Editors cannot study every subject they write on and tend to believe press releases, which always omit details and exaggerate.
I read the text of US Supreme Court rulings. Editors have limited space and, wanting readers to react and continue buying papers, they omit the important subtle points of the justices’ opinions.
I do public speaking and want details so my speeches will persuade. I also want to keep my credibility. Once lost, it’s hard to regain.