Okay fine yes. The proper and disciplined answer spoken by someone who appreciates the act of conducting science. To make the point much more precise. From a p

Okay fine yes. The proper and disciplined answer spoken by someone who appreciates the act of conducting science. To make the point much more precise. From a philosophical perspective, while reaffirming existing knowledge is good and necessary for the continued advancement of scientific inquiry and the strengthening of knowledge of course, I would rather argue that the scope of the knowledge is too small. Scientists are so terrified of being accused of going out of bounds of what can easily and reproducibly be quantified, that they end up proving near tautology and it leaves one questioning if this was worth all the time and money for research. I guess I'm becoming a pragmatist as I age and feel a necessary part of knowledge is application. If scientific knowledge is not being used to improve the world, im not sure if it was worth the time and money. I know this isn't how universities see it. But I feel that while the authorities on knowledge have become ever-more timid in what they are willing to prove and say, grifters and intellectual charlatans take advantage of the gap and tell people all forms of pseudo-science and dogma which is eaten up by the public because there isn't really an authoritative story to counter many times.