If nearly all scientists agree with a theory, it may be called a scientific consensus. This consensus indicates that the theory is well-supported by extensive evidence and has undergone rigorous testing and peer review. While scientific consensus doesn't guarantee absolute truth, it reflects a strong level of agreement among experts in the field based on current knowledge.
The answer is a theory. A view that is not well-tested and widely accepted is just a hypothesis. A law has to be indisputable not just widely accepted
yes
When scientific experts reach a consensus on a particular theory, it is often referred to as "scientific consensus." This consensus arises when a substantial majority of experts in a field support a specific explanation or understanding based on evidence and research. It indicates a strong level of agreement among scientists, though it is important to note that scientific knowledge can evolve with new evidence.
test it
That is called peer review.
Answer: Certainly not.
theroy
when most people begin to agree on a single explanation , the explanation is called a theory
No, scientists did not immediately agree with the continental drift theory proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912. Many geologists and scientists of the time were skeptical because Wegener could not provide a convincing mechanism for how continents could move. The theory gained more acceptance later, particularly with the development of plate tectonics in the mid-20th century, which provided a scientific framework explaining the movement of continents.
Everyone, not just scientists in his time were reluctant to accept his ideas. To agree with him would be to go against the church, which was something nearly everyone was unwilling to do
Girolamo Fabrici
Most scientists and archaeologists agree that nomadic hunters and seafarers migrated to the Americas from Asia, specifically crossing the Bering land bridge around 15,000 years ago. This theory is supported by genetic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence.
I believe most scientists would agree that this is not currently known. Some, however, would say that there was no "before" - that time itself started with the Big Bang.
h
I believe most scientists would agree that this is not currently known. Some, however, would say that there was no "before" - that time itself started with the Big Bang.
I believe most scientists would agree that this is not currently known. Some, however, would say that there was no "before" - that time itself started with the Big Bang.
Those would be the pseudo scientists.