Re:How to Identify a Scientific Fact
by dumpsterdiver on Thursday December 29, 2022 @10:02PM
(#34181304)
Yeah, "future proof, established scientific facts" are pretty much the opposite of what scientific progress brings.
I find it repulsive to even entertain the idea of "future proof facts". To me that is hubris to the extreme, especially when it is based upon a consensus of those whose knowledge and instrumentation are grounded in the present.
Finally, as others have noted, science revolves around theories and observations, and what we can currently ascertain from said observations - not facts. Often times "facts" are nothing more than bullshit that has yet to be called out.
Imo, if someone is more interested in carving "facts" into stone than continually engaging with what we think we know - they aren't the right person for the job.
I find it repulsive to even entertain the idea of "future proof facts". To me that is hubris to the extreme, especially when it is based upon a consensus of those whose knowledge and instrumentation are grounded in the present.
Finally, as others have noted, science revolves around theories and observations, and what we can currently ascertain from said observations - not facts. Often times "facts" are nothing more than bullshit that has yet to be called out.
Imo, if someone is more interested in carving "facts" into stone than continually engaging with what we think we know - they aren't the right person for the job.