Why science should be accepted (v1.0)
This is really an article that poses a series of logic assertions. It is an exercise in logic/reasoning but is set in a scientific setting. Only the first statement is a statement about science. The scientific method is a rigorous approach. It really sounds weird, but I can't spot a logic flaw. Here are the logic assertions. A consensus science result may get replaced tomorrow with a better and more accurate result as more data comes in. This is a fact. A climate or evolution sceptic for example may argue a particular result they don't like should be ignored because of the above - it may get replaced tomorrow. But then by this logic shouldn't all scientific results be ignored because the exact same argument applies to every single one of them? Using this argument, when would a scientific result ever not be ignored because there is ALWAYS a tomorrow all the way to infinity? That means selective rejection of a scientific re...