Please, please don't listen to this article! The author is far worse than the processes he is demeaning. This article gives no reason whatsoever to believe the

Please, please don't listen to this article! The author is far worse than the processes he is demeaning. This article gives no reason whatsoever to believe the title. The main argument seems to be "we learn lots of new things, therefore most of what you previously learned is wrong." This has numerous and obvious problems. We can easily be learning new facts about things that were previously not considered or not known. Most facts that humans know are not scientific facts but rather personal. The large majority of people don't know very much about recent experimental results and only hear about ones after they have been so long and well-established that there is little chance they are significantly wrong. A fact can be 'wrong' while still being nearly right. That the list of ten largest cities in the US has changed just means that the person only knew the list of ten largest cities at the time that they learned it. If 'half of our facts were wrong' is taken at face value, then our truth-determining process is no better than flipping a coin. Do you think we could engineer bridges, build computers, get to the moon, sequence the human genome, or write software if every time we didn't know something we just asked it as a yes-no question and flipped a coin? So as much as I want to support skepticism and free-thinking or whatever this article is aiming at, this article is wrong and bad. I have the means to go out and determine true facts and I do this routinely.