so we found relativity

which is completly different

for example your description of temperature might work and the equations might predict well but you say nothing about the real nature of it and thus can't know what is really going on

Something that I learned after hours of debating people (and I'm not kidding about this) is that some people *actually* don't realize that intelligence affects socioeconomic status more than socioeconomic status affects intelligence

the molecules accelatere and the temprature rises as isthe presure

It's something that is so obvious

i literaly found this out by myself when i was 8

called some college to ask if its treu

you can never know if thats the objective reality though

Like hey, this group in our country has a low socioeconomic status, WHY could that be? Well many reasons yes... But, it could be an indicator that that group has lower intelligence.

its just a description using human language

you can look at the moleculair relative accelaration to see what the temprature is

I wouldn't assume that without more evidence though

But god damn the hoops some people will jump through to avoid that

Conclusion

human perception is what humans are and that perception isn't objective but is rather obswserved through consciousness

source wiki

so unless you know what consciousness is you can never know what perception and thus reality is

and you can also never know what consciousness is

i think scientific method and thought are the same

science is only "useful" not a truthteller

you get data process it as logical and rational as posible to get a outcome

when you get new insights you gain moa more accurate conclusion

science is based on this

yes

that thoeries get proven and new theoies develop from those discoveries just as more expirances leed to more discoveries in life

then there is flawed thinking and bas science , which i think is your problem with science

well

assume you can have 100% pure science with no paradigm, containing ALL data and be clear

you would only be describing the world through you own lens then

that isnt the way of scinece as you should always look for variables and anomolies

AND you would have the problem of base assumptions

it is open to the fact that it could be wrong

ppl are not, which again leads to bad scienece

and a stacking of mistakes and mis assumtions

you claim that objective science is the one that is simply a concensus among people

no

mainstream science is

mainstream science is objective?