I've explained this several times that facts and the narrative based on them are entirely different. The former is settled, otherwise it wouldn't be a fact. The

I've explained this several times that facts and the narrative based on them are entirely different. The former is settled, otherwise it wouldn't be a fact. The latter is not, and is what the discussion is for. > "science has conclusively shown something that TGD safe-space people don't want to hear" This plays out in every single HN thread when controversial subjects come up. We just had one a few days ago about male and female brains. > "I think it's likely that it's you that misunderstands what science is and how it works, not me." That's interesting because I've said that understanding science is a prerequisite to understanding the consensus of objective truths while explaining how those truths are derived from the scientific method and proofs, yet you argue that it's irrelevant in your prior comments since it can all be questioned endlessly. So which is it? Either you understand it and there are objective truths or you question it all. Claiming that someone else doesn't understand it is doing exactly what you say can't be done as an argument. Or, perhaps, I do know what science is and how it works, and having a consistent argument shows the power of using science in discussions where both parties agree on the same principles of reality? Anyways, this seems to have run its course so I'll end it there.