Standaard Boekhandel gebruikt cookies en gelijkaardige technologieën om de website goed te laten werken en je een betere surfervaring te bezorgen.
Hieronder kan je kiezen welke cookies je wilt inschakelen:
Technische en functionele cookies
Deze cookies zijn essentieel om de website goed te laten functioneren, en laten je toe om bijvoorbeeld in te loggen. Je kan deze cookies niet uitschakelen.
Analytische cookies
Deze cookies verzamelen anonieme informatie over het gebruik van onze website. Op die manier kunnen we de website beter afstemmen op de behoeften van de gebruikers.
Marketingcookies
Deze cookies delen je gedrag op onze website met externe partijen, zodat je op externe platformen relevantere advertenties van Standaard Boekhandel te zien krijgt.
Je kan maximaal 250 producten tegelijk aan je winkelmandje toevoegen. Verwijdere enkele producten uit je winkelmandje, of splits je bestelling op in meerdere bestellingen.
Science is based on facts, that is common knowledge. But what if those facts contradict each other, what is true then? Does what "most scientists" think apply then? Rocks from the moon, collected with the Apollo flights, have an age of +/- 4.6 billion years. But one of them deviates seriously: 5.5 billion years old or even more. So what is the real age? Because people don't know, that one deviation is further ignored; after all, the majority points to 4.6 billion years anyway. But science is not a democracy. It may very well be that just that one anomaly is correct and the majority wrong. For centuries the earth was flat and claiming otherwise could get you burned at the stake. In his search for real history, Thurlings repeatedly encounters this kind of democratization of science. The famous carbon dating method collides with a misunderstood phenomenon: older than 30,000 years, it turns out, radioactive carbon has not completely disappeared. There is a misunderstood remainder which should not be there. The method is useless but still people apply it, against their better judgment.