No it’s never context dependant. In regard to flat earth, the scientific response is simply that the evidence seems to contradict that theory. If some people th

No it’s never context dependant. In regard to flat earth, the scientific response is simply that the evidence seems to contradict that theory. If some people think it’s still a valid line of inquiry, then they’re perfectly entitled to pursue it. Science doesn’t dictate what is and is not a waste of time. If some people wish to assert that flat earth theories are definitely true, then that’s fine too. It’s not scientific, because science doesn’t have any mechanism for determining something to be definitely true. If some people want to claim that flat earth is likely true, that’s fine too, but it’s also not a very defensible scientific conclusion either, because the scientific evidence weighs heavily against that conclusion. But saying that something is definitely not true is equally anti-science, because science doesn’t have a mechanism for determining something to be definitely not true either. The problem that people have with this tends to be that when they notice somebody being “wrong” about something, they want to be able to conclusively prove that the other person is wrong, and that they are right. Especially if it’s in regards to an issue they consider important. If you think that the scientific evidence supports your position in a situation like this, the temptation is to claim that science unequivocally proves you are correct. It is however, an outright abuse of the scientific method. This sort of situation has become very common place. When science communicators are faced with anti-scientific assertions of absolute truth, they’re not inclined to acknowledge scientific uncertainty, and the limits of their own understanding. Sadly this has created a culture of anti-scientific science worship.