No true scientist would ever claim there are scientific "truths." There are data. There is hypothesis. There is the scientific method. There is probability. To assert certainty beyond that is not...scientific.
Science never claims eternal certainty, but it absolutely produces well-established truths — Tyson calls them "emergent truths." Denying them is denying reality.
Nine of Ethan’s ten items fit that description: rising CO₂, germ theory, interstellar objects, cosmic expansion, and so on. These aren’t tentative hypotheses; they’re mature scientific truths supported by convergent, overwhelming evidence.
COVID’s origin is the only one still developing. The rest are settled.
Excellent post - reminds me of the patient tone and generous intent of someone as lucid as Carl Sagan. I especially appreciated this assertion, that with low vaccination rates, we all face "a greater potential for disease mutation and for those pathogens to evade the immunity that even the vaccinated population has acquired. In the fight against infectious disease, the anti-vaccine stance is the pro-disease one, and that harms all of humanity". It's so tragic to have the technology, yet misinformation and fear prevents people from taking advantage of it.
Solid piece, especially point 8 about peer review. What gets missed in most convos about this is that reviewers aren't just gatekeepers checking facts, they're basically asking "does this idea deserve to enter the arena?" I've seen papers pass review where the reviewers fundamentaly disagree with the conclusions but let it thru because the methodology was sound enoughfor debate. That distinction between methodological rigor and truth claims feels more critical now than ever tbh.
Ippum soapum toopum foppum to fall in love according to many knowledgeable sources. Nevertheless, agree or not, and/or believe what you will. The facts stand alone in any inviolate context, depending on one or more submitted points of view (in most circumstances, that is)....n'est ce pas?
True that the data is accurate to what was collected, as presented. From there each point will be debated: a) what instruments were used, b) what condition and which versions of the instruments were used c) who were the team members operating the instruments d) what were the environmental conditions at the time of the readings (altitude, geography, rural, city, ...and much and much etc on down to the flash point of who funded it. THEN comes the kickers, the many interpretations of 1) what the data mean...and 2) far more polarizing are the professional and public interpretations of probable vs. possible trends. Adapting that to policy mandates by unelected administrators and elected politicians is a no win. Consider the combined bureaucratic inactions in the recent Palisade fire in California when the simple elemental truths of FIRE (a known truth) could not be put out by WATER (a known truth) despite plenty of policies in place for solutions. Add on to that the stymied REBUILD of the destroyed homesteads...also due to policies in place despite the fact that the policies do not account for the REASON for the rebuilds (a catastrophic fire). When consensus becomes the rule, errors become institutionalized - the very problem faced in physics research today and why the direction of cosmology has suffered compounding errors because funding only consensus rather than research, cripples the very spine of science (observation).
Sorry, but I think you missed the point of the article. You focused on form over function. Not that your comment is inaccurate it just misses the intent...certainty is not claimed. "Truth is in the eye of the beholder"....is the focus. Out of focus myopic "beliefs" are not based on current understanding. And boy, are we focused these days in our current social-psychological milieu on beliefs.
Right. We forget Socrates and Aquinas. I think of it this way. We are sure we have God by the toe (the truth) until we discover that God has no toes (an idea cannot be the thing it represents).
Au contraire! God's toes presumably don't enter the picture, even in the most salubrious circumstances (whatever the hell THAT could-or should-mean!). Let's face it--does God even have FEET? (Yet 1 more circumstantial consideration that ought to be initially established b4 pressing on, I'd say)
Moving on, I, for one, am most reluctant to pose even the most nefarious recommendation available, presuming (once more) that there even could be at least one of those to draw a presumably speculative conclusion FROM. Get it??
In my limited experience, I've noted with some apprehensive disdain that, for the most part, the expected results will NOT necessarily lead in any specific direction. You may think otherwise. You're certainly free to draw your own conclusion(s).
No true scientist would ever claim there are scientific "truths." There are data. There is hypothesis. There is the scientific method. There is probability. To assert certainty beyond that is not...scientific.
Science never claims eternal certainty, but it absolutely produces well-established truths — Tyson calls them "emergent truths." Denying them is denying reality.
Nine of Ethan’s ten items fit that description: rising CO₂, germ theory, interstellar objects, cosmic expansion, and so on. These aren’t tentative hypotheses; they’re mature scientific truths supported by convergent, overwhelming evidence.
COVID’s origin is the only one still developing. The rest are settled.
Excellent post - reminds me of the patient tone and generous intent of someone as lucid as Carl Sagan. I especially appreciated this assertion, that with low vaccination rates, we all face "a greater potential for disease mutation and for those pathogens to evade the immunity that even the vaccinated population has acquired. In the fight against infectious disease, the anti-vaccine stance is the pro-disease one, and that harms all of humanity". It's so tragic to have the technology, yet misinformation and fear prevents people from taking advantage of it.
MERELY NEARLY INTERESTING IN THE GR8 SCHEME OF THINGS...PRESUMING THERE IS ONE...OR MORE? OPINIONS MAY VARY.
Solid piece, especially point 8 about peer review. What gets missed in most convos about this is that reviewers aren't just gatekeepers checking facts, they're basically asking "does this idea deserve to enter the arena?" I've seen papers pass review where the reviewers fundamentaly disagree with the conclusions but let it thru because the methodology was sound enoughfor debate. That distinction between methodological rigor and truth claims feels more critical now than ever tbh.
Good stuff and I wouldn’t contest any of it.
Curious to hear thoughts on UFO/UAP phenomenon. Government hoax or possibly something else?
Ippum soapum toopum foppum to fall in love according to many knowledgeable sources. Nevertheless, agree or not, and/or believe what you will. The facts stand alone in any inviolate context, depending on one or more submitted points of view (in most circumstances, that is)....n'est ce pas?
True that the data is accurate to what was collected, as presented. From there each point will be debated: a) what instruments were used, b) what condition and which versions of the instruments were used c) who were the team members operating the instruments d) what were the environmental conditions at the time of the readings (altitude, geography, rural, city, ...and much and much etc on down to the flash point of who funded it. THEN comes the kickers, the many interpretations of 1) what the data mean...and 2) far more polarizing are the professional and public interpretations of probable vs. possible trends. Adapting that to policy mandates by unelected administrators and elected politicians is a no win. Consider the combined bureaucratic inactions in the recent Palisade fire in California when the simple elemental truths of FIRE (a known truth) could not be put out by WATER (a known truth) despite plenty of policies in place for solutions. Add on to that the stymied REBUILD of the destroyed homesteads...also due to policies in place despite the fact that the policies do not account for the REASON for the rebuilds (a catastrophic fire). When consensus becomes the rule, errors become institutionalized - the very problem faced in physics research today and why the direction of cosmology has suffered compounding errors because funding only consensus rather than research, cripples the very spine of science (observation).
Oh sure! Easy for YOU to say! Nevertheless, in point of fact:
IMO, there are very likely many additional interpretations to examine (assuming a willingness to do so, time permitting). I rest my case.
Your turn.
Sorry, but I think you missed the point of the article. You focused on form over function. Not that your comment is inaccurate it just misses the intent...certainty is not claimed. "Truth is in the eye of the beholder"....is the focus. Out of focus myopic "beliefs" are not based on current understanding. And boy, are we focused these days in our current social-psychological milieu on beliefs.
Right. We forget Socrates and Aquinas. I think of it this way. We are sure we have God by the toe (the truth) until we discover that God has no toes (an idea cannot be the thing it represents).
Preposterous ponderation, as such...
Au contraire! God's toes presumably don't enter the picture, even in the most salubrious circumstances (whatever the hell THAT could-or should-mean!). Let's face it--does God even have FEET? (Yet 1 more circumstantial consideration that ought to be initially established b4 pressing on, I'd say)
Moving on, I, for one, am most reluctant to pose even the most nefarious recommendation available, presuming (once more) that there even could be at least one of those to draw a presumably speculative conclusion FROM. Get it??
In my limited experience, I've noted with some apprehensive disdain that, for the most part, the expected results will NOT necessarily lead in any specific direction. You may think otherwise. You're certainly free to draw your own conclusion(s).
HAPPY TRAILS!
Spot on, Joe!