>There we are. "science believers". I'm a scientist. I know more about the nature of science and it's flaws more then most people. But there are a large cohort

>There we are. "science believers". I'm a scientist. I know more about the nature of science and it's flaws more then most people. But there are a large cohort of popular science readers who don't truly understand what science is. They sort of worship the results of scientific endeavors as reported by popular science but they don't truly grasp what science is. You're part of that cohort. >Because science is the only way anything could possibly be proven or proven wrong and you'll reject this as belief into which you apparently don't buy. Most people don't understand the true nature of science. Even people who worship the concept of empirical testing and the scientific method. There is a huge flaw in science in the fact that NOTHING can be proven in science it is fundamentally impossible. Things can only be falsified in science, nothing can be proven. It's in fact a core tenet of science. To quote Einstein: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” The logic behind why this is the case is not understandable to most people. >And I don't "take pride in 'truth seeking'". You really do make a lot of assumptions about me in this discussion. I think you do. Most people take pride in themselves being more "unbiased" then other people. It's normal. By probability you're the same as everyone else. It's cliche. >My identity is kept small, but thanks for worrying. I'm happy to be proven wrong any time. I'm not worrying. I'm anticipating your response, and making you aware of of cliche behavior so you don't fall into the trap. But you decided to "stop replying" indicating you are biased and emotionally invested. I mean if you're happy to be proven wrong, why don't you just continue to engage with me or admit you're wrong?