4 ms·

This seems like a generalization that needs to limited in scope. I think the science is settled about Newton’s laws, Maxwell’s equations, Avogadro’s number, and

This seems like a generalization that needs to limited in scope. I think the science is settled about Newton’s laws, Maxwell’s equations, Avogadro’s number, and DNA as the genetic material in bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. For pretty much anything taught in a 100 level science course, the science is largely settled. There are controversies in science, and those controversies make for good popular science press, but there is a lot of science that is settled.

Sebb767 5y ago
> I think the science is settled about Newton’s laws Except it isn't. These laws have been extended once by general relativity already and there's a non-zero chance that the dark matter problematic will prove them insufficient once again. I don't know enough about the other fields, but it's not unlikely that they have similar problems. The point is, things are really complex and surg edge cases. And if you make final statements like this to someone who is doubting the current consensus anyway, you'll only make yourself vulnerable without convincing them.
- fastaguy88 5y ago
  Different people may have different ideas about what “the science is settled” means. In many political discussions, the phrase actually is used to argue for or against the quality of the data. Often, when discussing climate change, or perhaps even evolution, the phase is used to say the data is clear, the earth is warming, or all living organisms share a common ancestor. Likewise, I think the science is settled that vaccines save lives. And the science is certainly settled that heavy and light objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Being skeptical that “the science is settled” because of some poorly understood edge case makes it very difficult communicate where there is uncertainty, and where there isn’t (because the data is clear and the science well understood).

Sebb767 5y ago

> I think the science is settled about Newton’s laws Except it isn't. These laws have been extended once by general relativity already and there's a non-zero chance that the dark matter problematic will prove them insufficient once again. I don't know enough about the other fields, but it's not unlikely that they have similar problems. The point is, things are really complex and surg edge cases. And if you make final statements like this to someone who is doubting the current consensus anyway, you'll only make yourself vulnerable without convincing them.

fastaguy88 5y ago
Different people may have different ideas about what “the science is settled” means. In many political discussions, the phrase actually is used to argue for or against the quality of the data. Often, when discussing climate change, or perhaps even evolution, the phase is used to say the data is clear, the earth is warming, or all living organisms share a common ancestor. Likewise, I think the science is settled that vaccines save lives. And the science is certainly settled that heavy and light objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Being skeptical that “the science is settled” because of some poorly understood edge case makes it very difficult communicate where there is uncertainty, and where there isn’t (because the data is clear and the science well understood).