5 ms·
> science-based and not up for discussion You realize this is a contradiction, right?
by realreality 5y ago
> science-based and not up for discussion
You realize this is a contradiction, right?
- ethbr0 5y agoScience can be conclusive.
- ekianjo 5y agoSure, everyone was positive about a millenium ago that everything rotated around the Earth. It was not even up for debate, even among scientists. We all know how that turned out.
- ethbr0 5y agoThat's a selective reading of scientific history. What about the rest of our modern scientific knowledge base? Gravity. Electromagnetism. Chemistry. Biology. There are entire swathes of disciplines that are well nailed down by results, and used daily as though they were fact. Because they work reliably. So I'm going to call BS on the idea that science can't be conclusive because of the definition of the scientific method. It's arguing in bad faith to point at the 1% and ignore the 99%.
- realreality 5y agoEven when it's conclusive, it should never become "not up for discussion". That's the realm of blind faith.
- netr0ute 5y agoIndividual studies might be conclusive about a particular thing, but as a whole, science by definition isn't conclusive.
- ethbr0 5y ago> Everyone got a vaccine and that is how it was because the decision was science-based and not up for discussion. And that's exactly what GP was stating, which is why parent's quip against an out of context quote was unreasonably pedantic.
- artificialLimbs 5y agoHow is this being downvoted? The objective of science is to further knowledge with study and revise conclusions.