I think what people miss about the industry of Science is that, logically, if a paper says "A=Foo" then we'd expect it to be true. And if another comes out that says, "A=Bar" then it's confusing, are both wrong, are both right.

But instead, the way it works is a consensus is built. Researcher Bob - "We see that A=Foo." Researcher Sally -"Well, I see that A=Bar." Researcher Timmy - "Well, I see that A=Far." Researcher Kimmy - "Well, I see it as A=Fbar." Community over time - "Now the community has seen that A=Fbar is consistently correct and can be relied upon and used." 20 years pass... Researcher Jeff - "Well, I see that Ab=Fbar actually." Community - "That's bullshit." Researcher Betty - "Well, actually I see that too. But I see Ab=FbarC". etc etc

Since we don't know what we don't know, it isn't really a "We're done!" situation for someone to get 100% correct, it's a process of evolution in knowledge.

> We see that A=Foo.

I think part of this is that scientists don't "see" as in observe these things. Instead they "think that" something is the case. And, they have math and ideas to back that up.

If we had repeatable observation of the things it would be much harder to make disagreeing arguments.

You're putting a lot of unstated assumptions into what "observation" is.

If you see a shimmer in a desert, does that mean there's an oasis?

> A post of Sabine's talked about how she thinks the crisis in physics isn't about physics [1]. Is it instead about the politics of the money and popularity? Is it about the psychology of being wrong? I mean, different physicists contradict each other and the truth isn't what's popular it is what's observed, right? If people contradict each other they can't all be right.

A good book (or two) for this is Isabel Stenger's Cosmopolitics 1 and 2.

She goes into a lot of physics debates from the 20th century, along with a lot of the political debates