>>13419034This.
>>13419029True enough that most people will never understand a fraction of a fraction of science. It can be likened to a faith, in that in both cases we take someone else's word for it. In this case, the institution that handles our education. And money, power, influence is wont to cause corruption in science as much as in anything else. This is very apparent in some areas of academia where nepotism and other kinds of favoritism is well known. The difference is that the scientific method makes it resistant to it, and falsities can be and are challenged and corrected.
But really all it comes down to is this: what are our alternatives? Religions and horse shit? Or your personal feelings and objectively narrow experiences? The greatest problem stupid people have, is that they don't understand just how unreliable anyone's (including mine) personal experiences and opinions are. They never think "I am not an expert, perhaps I should ask someone who is, or entire community of them?". I do that all the time in my head, a hundred times a day. And the experts for any given subject, are always found in science. Because that's the one thing that doesn't depend on fever dreams, 2000 year old books and preaching power hungry narcissists. If something in known science is wrong and someone can prove it, they WILL do it, and we WILL know. Even the aforementioned corruption can only slow that process down, but the scientific method itself ultimately makes it inevitable.
The scientific method always questions, always experiments, always tries to learn better. It thrives on being proven wrong about something. All the alternatives like religions have no such internal evolution. They never learn, they never improve, in fact they abolish the very attempt. So it doesn't matter if science is right 50% of the time or 99.99999% of the time, because statistically speaking it has to be right more often than any of the "competition", as it were.
