even if its 'my eyes work;

That's why you challenge and retest

'

and then through process of elimination reducing down the assumptions

That's the point behind the methodology

yes, but the process of challenge and retest isn't infalable either. For as much shit as we give the earth-centered view of the universe, they had mathematical proofs that it worked.

they just didn't have all the data until modern telescopes were built

and now we know there's no such thing as the sun

it's just the back of the moon

LOL

its turtles all the way down

you sure? I could have sword I saw a tortoise

But that's the thing. It's a model built on the assumption that things could be wrong, with the inclusion of new information going forward

yes and no, imagine how much shit would go down if something fundamental like relativity were disproven?

The difference between that and the Bible is that the only way to deal with "oh, it would be impossible for the earth to flood and for 2 of every animal to get onto a boat" is to handwave

Or if someone proved that gender is binary 😛

It wouldn't be entirely disproven

It might be that some aspect of it is incorrect, but it has predictive capability in reproducible environments

The numbers check out

And the more things we can get to check out, the more we can verify new ideas against

the numbers DO check out, but to oversimplify things, you can model 2 ( operation) 2 = 4 as 2+2=4, but you ALSO can model 2*2=4

there are alternative explainations for some things, but it would disrupt a lot of theories.

Sure, but that's not the same as everything being upended. It's partially correct, not fully incorrect

the reason why some theories struggle to usurp others is because they don't have a full answer for some things, but they might actually be right.

And we have had things like that occur in multiple fields

harder sciences deal with it better because they're closer to math.

it's like that in physics

softer sciences FAIL MISERABLY at this.

they're trying to get a "theory of everything"

one thing I can say for the radical left is thankfully they're removing themselves from the gene pool, maybe there's hope in the long term

The issue with the softer sciences is that there often too broad

Psych for instance is everything from neuropsych, which is dipping heavily into biology, to Jung

I love the natural science circle jerks

anyone using gab's dissenter?

Yassss

I've looked at two articles

It doesn't work in private mode though

😦

😢

:"(

I'm trying to figure out how to see all the comments