4 ms·
Assuming "evidence" in this context is something that has been sufficiently scrutinized and no alternative hypotheses pass muster, why would any of those three
by chousuke 7y ago
Assuming "evidence" in this context is something that has been sufficiently scrutinized and no alternative hypotheses pass muster, why would any of those three things matter? And if you're leaving open the possibility that the evidence in your hypothetical situation is wrong, then what is the point of your question?
The universe is what it is regardless of what we think of it. When we attain better understanding of the truth of things, we need to adapt to the truth. It is literally insane to do otherwise.
Fortunately, we are also part of the universe, so better understanding also grants us tools to change things more to our liking.
- oh_sigh 7y ago> why would any of those three things matter? Because the public is not scientific, and scientists generally rely on explicit or at least tacit approval of the public to do their work.
- stochastic_monk 7y agoMost basic science is funded by the government, at least in the US, whose money in turn comes from taxes.