Why do people consider today's scientific "fact" as "fact" when we have a written history of scientific "fact" that turned out to be incorrect as years passed?
Since something only becomes scientific "fact" when it gets wide acceptance by the peer review process, such a process does nothing to prove the theory as "fact" to a godhead.
Also any new "facts" will not easily be accepted into the scientific community if they contradict previous science, which is why it takes years for new "facts" to take the place of old "facts."
So why do people put so much stock into science, when it is clearly just a collection of "best guess" theories that are accepted as custom allows and subject to change at anytime by a persuasive academic article?
2006-08-21
06:03:18
·
8 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous