It depends. For something to be considered true in regard to science the scientific method must be used.
This means a hypothesis is formed, experiments are conducted and the results must be repeatable for the hypothesis to be correct. If you have a hypothesis and you conduct experiments and the results are continually repeatable, then we can reasonably conclude the hypothesis is correct. Without being able to do this, all you have is a hypothesis or a theory that can’t be factually proven. A theory is then subject to opinion and scrutiny.
In cases where the results are repeated verifying the hypothesis I don’t really question the science…that is assuming what we are being told is legit. That information is not being withheld, that there is no spin or political agenda in regards to the science.
For example, we know genes determine sex. Suddenly, due to the tranny agenda, everyone wants to question this. I’ve even seen school textbooks stating that more research is needed into what determines sex. That is nonsense being used to fit an agenda.
Same with everything surrounding Covid. “The science has changed.” No, your hypothesis was incorrect and you did not have repeatable results. The science didn’t change, the narrative did.
In some of the examples you cited here, for example with the lobotomy. The science didn’t change. It was simply decided preforming those was the best and most ethical way to treat the mentally ill. Clearly there should have been objections from the start. The problem wasn’t the science or that it changed, but rather if it was ethical or not to perform those procedures.
As stated there are issues with propaganda and agendas in relation to what is presented as science and how that that science is employed.
So the issue as I see it is not so much one of science but rather one of whom is telling us what is or is not science, factual, and if they’re telling us the truth.
At this point I have little if any trust and faith in any of the the worlds various governments. I believe undoubtedly they will lie to us and conceal pertinent facts about literally anything, science or not. So questioning anything any government tells you is probably a good idea.
Most Helpful Opinions
Settled science is BS.. it is just what liberals say when they want you to believe some crackpot idea that they cannot prove or even substantiate. They just call it settled science with the hope that nobody will question them. Then the fake news repeats it and suddenly they gave gotten away with the scam
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
9Opinion
I prefer settled science
Settled Science = Climate Change = an attempt to convince people by saying it is Settled Science loudly.
My view is that a huge disservice has been done to the cause these people espouse, by claiming Settled Science or the Consensus. Even more damage by hammering 'renewables' which are clearly inadequate.
Small modular nuclear power would have solved the issue but oh no it had to wind power didn't. The Espousers have buggared it all up.When you censor all dissenting opinions then claim "there's a consensus!" that's when you know it's off the rails.
Fairness, now- Galileo was the denier. Geocentrists pointed out, quite logically, that if the Earth orbited the sun, there would be parallax shift in the stars- and there observably wasn't.
Everything changes even history. In fact even English writing because now you use one space instead of two behind the period.
After government became the primary funding source for science, it was only a matter of time before science became “Science” and was not to be questioned.
Yes, all the time. I actually think they lie to us more than they tell the truth.
I think we all do. Even scientists. If a scientist can prove settled science is wrong…oh the money and pussy.
I would question it.
Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 3 more Xper points!
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!