is science always right?
- Thread starter +Holy Spirit
- Start date
This question is fundamentally flawed. There's no 'science-overmind' that has all the answers.
There's only consensus based on observation of evidence. Done by humans.
Which kinda says it all, doesn't it?
Still, it works well enough. Wouldn't be able to post this otherwise now would I?
Not to mention the lack of trustworthy alternatives.
There's only consensus based on observation of evidence. Done by humans.
Which kinda says it all, doesn't it?
Still, it works well enough. Wouldn't be able to post this otherwise now would I?
Not to mention the lack of trustworthy alternatives.
it should be about discovery, but now the science community and the controlled science as well as the controlled knowledge, sadly it's about forging beliefs and assumptions, and also guesses to be truth when it's not... if the controlled science community says this about something then it must be true... or is it?
i worded it like that on purpose, kind sir... 
and thanks for noticing...
there is no 'science-overmind' that has all the answers, you are surely correct on that one, but there's surely a facade that the world has... more or less there's a database, if you will, that the human race has that keeps changing, that's guessing, trail and error... it's called science, but people think what is written about something is truth rather than someone's and/or a group's opinion(s), assumption(s) and perhaps to keep knowledge from others and/or put false knowledge out upon the masses with a tool of the human race, called science...
well, the computers and the internet wouldn't be possible without technology, not just science itself, if you will...
what would the untrustworthy alternatives might be?
and thanks for noticing...
there is no 'science-overmind' that has all the answers, you are surely correct on that one, but there's surely a facade that the world has... more or less there's a database, if you will, that the human race has that keeps changing, that's guessing, trail and error... it's called science, but people think what is written about something is truth rather than someone's and/or a group's opinion(s), assumption(s) and perhaps to keep knowledge from others and/or put false knowledge out upon the masses with a tool of the human race, called science...
well, the computers and the internet wouldn't be possible without technology, not just science itself, if you will...
what would the untrustworthy alternatives might be?