GODZILLA: Fact Or Fiction? **The Bloop**

The vast majority of legitimate scientists acknowledge that 'The Bloop' was a real sound. 

They also pretty much agree that it was an underwater icequake or some other geological event, not an animal sound. 

And even the few quacks who still believe it is an animal noise, even those believe it is from an unknown animal that is simply more efficient at making sound, not necessarily something really big. 

yeah, but weren't there a couple scientists saying that the sound was too loud and big to be an icequake? 

Yeah scientists are conflicted with each other about the whole thing

Saying scientists are 'conflicted' about this would be no more accurate that saying scientists are 'conflicted' about gravity.

You can always find a couple scientists to believe something weird, but that hardly constitutes an actual schism in the field. 

By and large though, the bloop is pretty much believed to be an icequake.

'Bloop Mystery'

Wow....godzilla may be real....I think ill ill buy the survival pack....

That's really scary....

I'd better watch my totally-not-an-immortal-kaiju-in-disguise self!

@Something Real: We all better buy a couple o.o

@Madison

Scientists also used to think the universe revolved around earth and that gravity was a 'force'. Take your high and mighty BS somewhere else. 

There is no general concensus what the bloop was, just a few people spouting that it was an ice quake and "I fuckin love science" sheeptards that worship the ground that niel degrass walks on requoting it. Currently the icequake theory is the most accepted, however I've heard that it could have also been caused from underground volcanic activity. 

BUT until we can confirm it was an icequake or a volcano (which we cannot) it'll remain as OH MY GOD, A MYSTERY. Deal with it. 

yeah regardless of what it is or isnt. The mystery that surrounds it is still pretty cool

It was a 'mystery' in the 90's, when it happened. We have since gathered more evidence, heard similar sounds (the original Bloop was unique for it's time), and pretty much confirmed it was an icequake. That's not me being pretentious. That's just reading pretty much any scientific article on the subject that's not outdated and/or from 1997. 

I'm not going to argue that science never gets it wrong. Obviously in the past, due to a lack of information or 'outside the box' thinking we had backwards understanding of many topics. There are plenty of subjects even today where there are strong dissident groups in the scientific community. Issues like the Big Bang, Global Warming, String Theory, how General Relativity reconciles with Quantum Mechanics, and certain subjects in cloning have sharp divisions in the debate where the 'minority' can be larger than 1/3 of the scientists publishing in respected journals. On some of these issues, the minority may wind up to be correct, even though most news outlets and K-12 textbooks don't even print that a minority exists. 

Other topics, like wormholes and certain mysteries of the human brain, we really don't have a clue; our understanding of these things is quite limited and 50-100 years from now our understanding will probably not resemble anything like our current understanding today.

But 'The Bloop' really isn't one of these topics. If you look at credible scientists (there are always fringe quacks who have degrees who can vouch for some radical opinion or another...I remember reading an article by a professor advocating that all humans commit mass suicide because he believed we were developing weapons which would destroy the universe, so to save the universe and all potential alien life, the human race had to die...they just usually aren't published in respected journals) they pretty much acknowledge that The Bloop was a geological event, not an organism.

While science may fallible, there are topics we have enough evidence and observation to pretty much rely on as fact at this point. Things like gravity, the rock and water cycle, how a chloroplast works, we do pretty much know. Yes, a dose of healthy skepticism is good, but refusing to rely on anything at all as true or scientifically proven, is way less healthy and deconstructive than admitting from time to time, yes we might actually KNOW something.

To rely on the opposite assumption, that NOTHING is ever proven, and dismissing all science because scientists have been wrong before, basically impedes ALL progress and understanding towards any topic, because you have to have building blocks, assumptions you make, or things you know to be true, before you can experiment or explore deeper directions. If EVERYTHING is a mystery, we're basically stuck banging rocks together in loin cloths; you won't build a wheel if you don't know it will roll. 

Similarly, we won't learn more about icequakes or their impacts if all our research subs are looking for the giant kaiju that caused The Bloop.