>>12170814You heard me. If you think "facts" exist in any hard sense in science, you don't understand science. There are temporary beliefs subject to revision.
If you want certainties about the world that are supposed to never change, you're looking for dogma, which is a religious thing. Not, ideally, a scientific thing.
Which former scientific belief ("fact") would you like us to believe:
That the overlapping fossil records of continents surrounded by oceans is due to a near endless array of now vanished land bridges. (The early 20th century, pre-continental-drift view.)
That it's impossible to have a triangle with interior angles that add to something other than 180 degrees. (The 18th century, pre-non-Euclidian view.)
Global cooling. (The 1970s view of climate trends.)
There are no facts in science. The whole point of the endeavour is a willingness to scrap potentially any belief about the world. Sorry sweaty, but that means you don't have facts.
