>>14135779>>14135825>You should never trust anyone who claims something is 100% sure.This. Science doesn't "settle", even if it corresponds 100% to the truth, within its scope of inquiry.
Occasionally random noise, unusual occurrences, and other nonsense cast doubt upon otherwise good models, because the scope of inquiry wasn't where we thought it was. Such models can fall out of favor, only to be resurrected when we realize it wasn't such a bad idea after all.
You might think creating policies based on science is good, since it's one of our best tools for understanding the world. But that only works if the policy is effectively reversible in case there's a mistake. Science adapts, after all, and a science-based policy has to be equally adaptable to keep up.
But if you say,
>the science is settled!>therefore, we can mandate irreversible changes to our citizens' biology without worry!>oops, it looks like the science wasn't settled after all>but we can't reverse the changes we made to adapt accordingly, oh well>sucks to be you, nerd!People to this day get lynched around the world for less.
