Figuring out the truths from falsehoods is an art. Sorry, but there you have it. The so-called "Scientific Method" is just mechanics and formalities of what gen

Figuring out the truths from falsehoods is an art. Sorry, but there you have it. The so-called "Scientific Method" is just mechanics and formalities of what generally convinces people about certain claims. apu's recommended reading and viewings (Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", and Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed") are excellent starting points in your personal explorations into this. Another worthwhile reading comes from Issac Asimov, "The Relativity of Wrong" (http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html ). I think he may have been an inspiration to the notion of science as an enterprise at being "less wrong", per this redacted snippet: John Campbell [Asimov's editor], who specialized in irritating me [...] told me that all theories are proven wrong in time. My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong. However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts...