Don’t read just the title.
It isn’t just the shit headline getting downvotes. The ny times is also garbage.
People seem to hate the title but hopefully it lures in some ignorant people who would ask that and teach them why science changing is a good thing.
The fact that science is continually updating itself is the reason to trust it. Science doesn’t rest on its laurels. It doesn’t say “Well, solved that one! Don’t ever have to think about that again!”
Science is continually re-evaluating itself in light of new information, discarding conclusions that are no longer supported by evidence, and making new ones based on new understandings of the elements involved.
Yeah, that seems to be the article’s thesis, just a misleading title.
What I’m proposing is neither global pessimism nor naïve faith. It’s local skepticism, or disciplined trust, which is precisely what science needs to improve itself. The history of science is indeed a graveyard of theories, but the fact that science keeps changing is a mark of its strength. It keeps changing because the world is complex and full of wonder. That isn’t a problem; it’s the engine that drives scientific progress
Misleading af title
Ofc. It’s the NYTrash - centuries of imperial propaganda and worthless bullshit.
lot of people voting and commenting that didn’t read the article.
To be fair tho… Why should people read some clickbait bullshit from phony imperial propagandists?
I assumed based on the subtext requesting we read the article that the contents of said article said that we should trust it because it’s constantly changing and challenging itself.
However I think some people might be inclined to downvote specifically because this kind of headline is basically clickbait. I’m not sure they’re wrong in doing so.
What a stupid take
You didn’t read the article.
Yeah, you don’t engage with stupid rage bait garbage.
Yep. This is exactly the kind of take that got the US to where it is now. This is the exact sort of thing you’d hear one of those people say.
What an ignorant question.
At least in person I’ve had a little luck explaining that science doesn’t actually claim to be the Truth. It does however prove what’s false. So the current science is only the best idea we have so far. And when we have new information current science changes.
Compared to faith or religion which has no idea if it’s wrong, and refuses to change with new information. Which is more trustworthy for the most effective advice in a changing world?
It does however
prove what’s falseprovide evidence of what’s un/likely.No. No, it proves what ideas are not true.
That’s what the falsifiable standard is all about.What you might be thinking of are unfalsifiable claims, like religion often makes. And in those cases yes, science can’t say they’re false. So science doesn’t apply at all to those things. You may use logic or mathematics to try find a probability for those things, but that’s not realy science. Those are different disciplines. Though they do have overlap, as science uses them also.
