3 ms·

Unquestionable facts do not exist in science. It is not how the scientific method works. It is a serious issue that the basic foundations of scientific method a

Unquestionable facts do not exist in science. It is not how the scientific method works. It is a serious issue that the basic foundations of scientific method are now completely misunderstood by the vast majority of the public. This issue is spilling into politics and academia, as showed completely clearly with covid and terms like 'The Science' being used in an outright authoritarian or even religious way. I think science needs to be taught through a different lens, without unquestionable facts, all the way from childhood. If done properly it only has positive effects in improving critical thinking and adding a sense of wonder about all the facets of the universe that remain to further understand. Unfortunately it likely comes down to the unfortunate observation that political powers want a public that is trained to be obedient and accept facts handed down from above.

29athrowaway 3y ago
You make it seem more subjective than it is. Scientific progress represents a "local maximum" of the best available explanation we can provide. If you have proof for a better explanation then that explanation becomes the accepted one.
- plsbenice34 3y ago
  Essentially every model is wrong and will be continually replaced with an improved one. Classical mechanics was incredibly convincing. Don't fall into the fallacy that our era is the first to have it all solved. It isn't subjectivity, it is the objective philosphy of science and definition of scientific method. There was a time when your messages would be applied to argue that Earth is the centre of the universe and people were killed if they disagreed. For evolution in particular, I am not religious at all and probably have as much 'faith' in the basics of it as any evolutionary biologist would, but there are massive questions still open, like abiogensis being completely unsolved >If you have proof for a better explanation then that explanation becomes the accepted one. There is no proof, there is only evidence. It simply takes some softer wording to say 'we observe x, so we conclude y' instead of proof and facts
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

29athrowaway 3y ago

You make it seem more subjective than it is. Scientific progress represents a "local maximum" of the best available explanation we can provide. If you have proof for a better explanation then that explanation becomes the accepted one.

plsbenice34 3y ago
Essentially every model is wrong and will be continually replaced with an improved one. Classical mechanics was incredibly convincing. Don't fall into the fallacy that our era is the first to have it all solved. It isn't subjectivity, it is the objective philosphy of science and definition of scientific method. There was a time when your messages would be applied to argue that Earth is the centre of the universe and people were killed if they disagreed. For evolution in particular, I am not religious at all and probably have as much 'faith' in the basics of it as any evolutionary biologist would, but there are massive questions still open, like abiogensis being completely unsolved >If you have proof for a better explanation then that explanation becomes the accepted one. There is no proof, there is only evidence. It simply takes some softer wording to say 'we observe x, so we conclude y' instead of proof and facts
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]