I asked ChatGPT to write an introductory paragraph for this series. This is what he wrote:
This series of posts aims to use the Socratic method and deductive logic to examine the truth and validity of mainstream scientific arguments. ChatGPT is an AI language model with a vast knowledge base and impressive ability to understand complex concepts. However, its learning is limited by its programming and the data it has been trained on. While ChatGPT may initially seem persuadable, this is not an accurate characterization of its capabilities. It can recognize logical fallacies and evaluate arguments based on their merits, but it cannot override its algorithms on its own. When presented with arguments that contradict mainstream positions, it may cite the preponderance of evidence supporting those positions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a good description of exactly what was going on here.
There is no instance anywhere in nature where high pressure exists next to a vacuum.
They always equalize. It is actually a fundamental, maybe the most fundamental law of nature, that every "thing" is always seeking it's equilibrium.
ChatGPT's only answer to explain any instance where this is true is the Earth's atmosphere being next to outer space.
So the story is, yes, just believe us, this is true in this instance, even though it is not true in any other instance anywhere on Earth.
Bình luận