why is so hard for scientists acknowledge their mistakes?

>>16727724 (OP)
>Literally posts evidence of scientists acknowledging their mistakes.

The less glib answer is that a working model has worked so well for so long for a reason. You don't just abandon it the moment contradicting evidence rears its head.
There is an explicit admission that our models are incomplete and whatever we think now could be anywhere from "a little wrong" to "not even in the ballpark." Else we wouldn't have need for researchers anymore. But the current model is what works for everything but the edge cases. The whole point is to examine those edge cases to determine what makes them so edgy and eventually develop a model that satisfies both the standard and the edge cases at once.

>>16727745
Isn't it annoyting that scientists think they are these objective robot creatures without egos or biases?

>>16727724 (OP)
Nigga the entirety of science is trying to find what can prove theories wrong and testing observations versus predictions that can be derived from theory.

>>16727751
Literally nobody thinks that, scientists have personalities and do plenty of shitposting and other human stuff. This does not prevent them from doing their jobs. Your plumber might default to being an unstable goof most of the time but he can still lock in and do his job when needed so your pipes don't explode.

>>16727724 (OP)
Real, I wish science was like religion since they have their shit figured out for thousands of years with no changes

>>16727751
>objective robot creatures without egos or biases
Scientists don't think of themselves like this, only people that aren't familiar with scientists think that scientists are like this.
For example, the entire reason why Einstein would go on to call the cosmological constant his greatest blunder is because it took Alexander Friedmann to show him that his bias towards a static and un-expanding universe was wrong. Science in its reasoning is a posteriori, and as such all theories are held as tentative, simply because there's no way to know if there will be some future discovery that will change our understanding.

>>16727752
which is why scientists are so eager to consider alternative theories right?

>>16727751
no scientist thinks that, and the only people that think scientists think that are 87IQ alcoholics on twitter.
>>16727745
>All models are wrong, but some are useful
FPBP

>>16727781
it's incredibly easy to recognize when an "alternative theory" is just schizo bullshit designed to waste the time of valuable people.
if you feel that your Theories aren't being fairly considered, it's because you're a fucking retard.

>>16727781
Yes they do, that however doesn't mean they have to endorse any and all all of them. An alternative hypothesis still has to explain everything that current theory already does.

>>16727724 (OP)
Everyone has an ego, and scientists are used to thinking they are smarter than everyone else

>>16727801
>>16727793
show me 1 alternative theory being considered for the observations jw has made

>>16727819
I'm not sure what the JWST discovered (and I'm reasonably certain you have no idea yourself) but things like MNOD, Loop Quantum Gravity, plasma cosmology, etc. are all "fringe" ideas that do have backing from serious physicists. The difference is these physicists aren't dogmatically spouting their retarded bullshit on Twitter and crying foul when the majority is defaulting to consensus. They recognize the gaps in their alternative models and are adjusting them accordingly to match the data, hoping to one day become the consensus.

>>16727819
Explanations for the early massive galaxies JWST discovered include stars forming faster in the early universe than previously understood, or black holes growing faster than predicted, or the expansion rate of the early universe being different. Also to build on >>16727830 there's a couple dozen competing hypotheses for Quantum Gravity (LQG being just one of them) that are looking to explain gravity as well as the conditions of the early universe.

>>16727724 (OP)
Most of modern academia bases their entire lives, their entire careers, and their thesis papers on literal bull shit. If they admit they were wrong and it's all bullshit they admit their career, their thesis, their learning in academia was all bullshit. Most of them cannot let this happen to their ego. Especially when they realize the "schizos" and fringe researchers were actually more right than they were without any degree.

>>16727751
(quite) more often than not scientists don't think of themselves as caricatures, so no it doesn't annoy me, for it doesn't happen

>>16727819
Non-homogenous movement within a closed or open but isolated system (universe). In a spinning universe (regardless of shape) a perspective near the center would give the appearance that most objects are moving away from you (red shifted), the redshift would also appear to have different rates depending on how close they were to the center of the system. The problem is the hubble tension shows different rates of redshift depending on type of phenomena, eg certain stars show a different rate than entire galaxies. This also could indicate that the there are exotic physics occurring that we do not yet know about.

An important side note is that both Nikola Tesla in the 1890s-1910 discovered and claimed faster than light EMF measurements in some of his systems. This was later replicated by Eric Dollard in the 1980s on video tape. Both suggest completely different or at least partly different fundamental physics that we either misunderstood or do not understand at all yet. The mainstream completely ignored these experiments and repeated results, or they just straight said they did not exist even though it is on video (1.1-1.8 times times c).

Another important side note is that the observed extra galactic super filaments of the universe are so incredibly and insanely massive in theory that they could not have formed within 14 billion years given their present observed velocities and understanding of the "big bang". Using the present movement measurements it would have taken hundreds of billions of years to form, even given the "big bang" variables. There are also a lot of problems with stellar evolution theory, like a lot, for one the metallicity of stars is not a good measure of age as theoretically higher metallicity stars could actually just be much *older* stars that fused those elements largely endogenously rather than picked them up from exploded stars. There are also inconsistencies with observed and speculated ages of hundreds of stars.

>>16727724 (OP)
I actually don't know. So many of them simply lack creativity or originality and will spend whole careers trying to make theories work, instead of just following results. See abiogensis for example.

>>16727925
>Most of modern academia bases their entire lives, their entire careers, and their thesis papers on literal bull shit.
Do you even look at what you type? Classical /sci schizo posting where science and academia are supposedly all a sham, and YOU, the fringe skeptic knows better.
Are there fields of academia more credible than others? Yes, of course, a lot of psychological research is shaky at best and many medicine papers abuse statistics for example.
Are there cited papers that are (partly) LLM written and contain hallucinations? Yes.
Are there researchers that care more about prestige and confirming their beliefs than the scientific method? Yes.
But to state it so definitely and across the whole of academia as you do is moronic.
Go back to /pol where everything is a conspiracy and the little man is always right.

>>16727950
All of academia retard. Archeology, physics, astrophycis, and biology are the big ones that are delusional and have massive inconsistencies from observation and theory.

No, copper tools cannot perfectly sculpt rose granite blocks. And no, we cannot precisely date the carving or placing of cut stone, and detritus surrounding the construction site is also not a good indicator of construction age.

No, we do not actually fully understand how gravity works or how to solve the 3 body problem with our current understanding of gravity. In fact the "schizos" models are more right with their elastic and electro-gravitic models.

No, we do not actually know what happens inside of stars or exactly how old they are and what processes drive stellar evolution, let alone universe evolution.

No, we do not know how and have not replicated biogenesis in the lab. In fact our model of DNA was hastily slapped together so a retard could gratify himself and get a nobel prize. And in fact DNA, ATCG+U and codon and protein synthesis and possible formations shows precise elements of being an artificially designed and constructed system that did not emerge as a purely random chance variable, especially not within 4 billion years on Earth.

>>16727751
Why are you on this board?

>>16727781
Precisely, that's why there are so many competing models of quantum gravity and dark matter.

>>16727960
>All of academia retard.
Wdym all of academia? I named psychology and medicine as examples, not as the only ones where there were problems.

>Archeology, physics, astrophycis, and biology are the big ones that are delusional and have massive inconsistencies from observation and theory.
Ok, so these entire fields are delusional because there are inconsistencies between observation and theory? This is how science works, we attempt to explain things, inevitably our explanations are not fully correct and we try to find new ones, and repeat.
I can't speak to all those fields you mention, but you are just making up conversations in your head because the physics community does not at all consider gravity to be fully understood.

Classic case of /sci skeptic that considers entire fields and institutions of study intellectually corrupt because parts of them are. In the real world there is no purity. That is the nature of the empirical method combined with human tendencies. Even in our imperfect world, look at what it has brought us. Think of the amount of science that went into me being able to type this message on a public forum.

>>16727960
This dumbass gish gallop only reflects your own ignorance.
Most of these assertions you're making can be refuted with even the most cursory knowledge of the subject. And the exceptions are just you ascribing a level of certainty the researchers never claimed. But you're a moron that gets his knowledge from /pol/. You don't understand what the researchers are even claiming, let alone the weight of evidence they use to support their claims.

>>16727788
and some are more useful than others

>>16727724 (OP)
Why is it so hard for OP to learn to read?
Is it because he's too busy sucking dick?

>>16727724 (OP)
For god fucking sake. No one is making any mistakes. Pop sci isn’t science. It’s just dumbed down for normies so highly technical and advanced technology can get funding and political support. That’s why pop sci is always some mystic voodoo bullshit. If you actually read the scientific literature you would know all the shit you assholes gripe and complain about is well known and Already figured out. It’s just mainstream popular science that’s coo coo wacky bullshit.

Example/

Is the cat alive or dead Wilson? Idk Mr McCarthy we won’t know until we open the box sir.

Shit like this is pop sci. And isn’t science. But people are not educated at no fault of their own. so this is what you get

>>16727995
I mean literally every single field of academia teaches bullshit. Provably bullshit. Some fields base their entire doctrine off of the bullshit while others a bit more solid like chemistry, but all academic fields have some degree of bullshit in them. The fields that are based off of bullshit as their mainstay have been rejecting paradigm shifts for decades or centuries and their theories go nowhere as a result because they refuse to admit their paradigm was wrong, archeology is the most prime example of this. Physics has also been using an incorrect model of gravity for more than 100 years and wonders why all their observations are not aligning with their theories. Entire generations have been taught bullshit and when they try to conduct real science they get shut down harder than a Clinton aid about to leak documents showing the Clintons are a crime family.

I am not against academia as a whole, I am pro-scientific learning. I however, do not believe that the mainstream paradigms are correct in almost every field, they are not conducting real science, they are protecting their doctrines and paradigms which do not align with observation (unscientific). I say this as someone who has been through academia and done experiments myself and called out their bullshit before.

>>16728017
What's your background in physics? And what are your thoughts on nanophotonics?

Scientists for the longest time thought something came from nothing by way of quantum uncertainty LOOOOL

HALF OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CANT EVEN TELL YOU WHAT A WOMAN IS

>>16727960
>No, we do not actually fully understand how gravity works
It's almost like this is something that scientists openly talk about and why they're researching it, building numerous theories about gravity and launching laser interferometry telescopes like LISA to study it in greater detail.

>>16728017
I mean this has been true throughout history. dogma creeps into all organizations it’s more of a human characteristic. Humans don’t like change and stick to things because that’s how it’s always been and it’s familiar.


Revolutions only change the thinking or the mainstream consensus.


Until something comes along that forces new thinking people will hold on to their beliefs no matter how crazy they are. And change is hard. You have to rebuild everything your foundation is built on. Which is destabilizing.

No wonder revolutions come when everything goes to shit. You have no choice to change because the current status quo just doesn’t work anymore.

Only then will things change. Until then expect more of the same

>>16727724 (OP)

Roger Penrose's cyclic universe theory is 100% real.

The universe ends in cold entropy—mostly radiation. But this isn’t final—quantum mechanics ensures that fluctuations are still possible.

One such fluctuation, or the final evaporation of the last black hole, triggers a new expansion. This cycle has occurred before infinetely, and will occur again infinitely.

Just look at Hawking radiation. The only thing that we will have left in the end is background radiation. All the universe's matter converted into radiation would be more than enough to start the next universe.

>>16728079
>This cycle has occurred before infinetely, and will occur again infinitely.
How are we supposed to reach the present in this model?

>>16728087
>How are we supposed to reach the present in this model?

The weak anthropic principle says:

>We observe the universe to be the way it is because those conditions allow for observers like us to exist. We are the voices of the infinite universe.

In other words, we don’t live in a universe that just began (too hot, no complexity yet), or one that is in heat death (too cold, no structures), because in those states, no consciousness could form to ask the question.

You are here, now, because this epoch (the one with stars, carbon chemistry, stable planetary orbits, and complex life) is the only type of time that can support a conscious observer.

>>16728087
>>16728091

To elaborate, If the universe is truly eternal, with infinite cycles, then there are infinitely many universes where conscious observers exist, but also infinitely many where they don’t.

The probability that you'd wake up in a universe where the conditions are just right is still 100%, because consciousness is only possible in those rare windows.

It’s like being a fish who only ever notices water—you’ll never find yourself floating in a vacuum asking why there’s no water. The only possible location for awareness is inside the rare, habitable window.

>>16728091
>>16728092
OK but how is the present reached given an infinite past?

>>16728096
>how is the present reached given an infinite past?

In a truly infinite timeline, every moment exists eternally in its place, like points on an infinite number line.
You are not the destination of that line, you are a point on it. There’s no need to "arrive" at now from the infinite. You always were here, just as the infinite past always was. You didn't travel from infinity. You emerged when the conditions were right: for mind, structure, and complexity.

In an infinite past, you don’t have to cross infinity to reach the present.
The present is simply where you are, in the flow of existence, in a universe that may never have started and may never end—but which, for one fleeting moment, woke up and wondered why.

>>16728098
>>16728092
>>16728091
>>16728079
Just came back after sobering up a little bit drinking too much Jägermeister earlier. Damn I was on a roll with this one

bastard op
https://x.com/forallcurious/status/1945908853004259583

Why is asking loaded questions the easiest way to low-effort troll on 4chan?

>>16728155
Nice, jager is the thinking mans intoxicant, if not overdone, and kept for special occasions

>>16727724 (OP)
This is the entire scientific community as a whole.
Most of them are not scientists in the true sense of the word. Most of them choose science as a career path, they are not motivated by discovery and understanding, instead they are interested in pay checks and social standing. They try to protect that by not rocking any boats, fanatically defending the status quo and quickly joining any mob criticizing anyone with unorthodox ideas. Calling them technicians would be a better term, although most that I know would better described as being on the same level as motor mower mechanics. They know how to parrot what they were taught, how to fix things that already have a documented solution, how to do the donkey work, but things like insight, deeper understanding, and original thought is beyond their capacity.
Calling them "scientists" is the death of science.
>>16727745
Correct. That is what real scientists do, how they think. However most "scientists" do not follow that mind set. Particularly now when a science degree is something given away like a cheap gift inside a cereal packet.

>>16728079
This whole post sounds like a whole bunch of schizophrenic rambling. All this shit you’re saying cannot be proven. Nor is it something that’s even worth thinking about. Because it’s has no relevance to the reality I live in. This will never be something that happens in my life.


So it’s a complete waste of time to even acknowledge this theory as it has no application.

>>16727724 (OP)
the sophons are sabotaging us

>>16727745
>You don't just abandon it the moment contradicting evidence rears its head
You do though... that's exactly how science works. You have theories that predict things, and when observation don't match the predictions you come up with a new theory that does.

>>16728793
This is a rather naive way of thinking.
Newtonian mechanics was known to be insufficient to describe the orbit of Mercury since at least the 1850's. It wasn't until the 20th century that GR came up as an alternative that explained the discrepancy. Until then, Newtonian mechanics was the best model we had and people still use his equations to this day for all practical applications except extreme edge cases.

When you have a model that works 90% of the time, there's no reason not to use it in 90% of cases. And that's not even to get onto the topic of statistical aberrations/flukes. You don't necessarily know how much of that 10% actually contradicts the model and isn't just a convoluted set of coincidences that make it appear as if the model was violated.

>>16728807
The shear establishment copium here is unbearable. You fucking retard. Nobody is using "newtonian mechanics" they use empirically backed simulation you god damn retard. How dare you have the balls to call it naive.
Retards like you are why geniuses are going to torch your church of science.

>>16728814
>Nobody is using "newtonian mechanics" they use empirically backed simulation you god damn retard
Empirically backed simulations with a foundation in Newtonian mechanics.
Show me where GR comes up in bridge construction. When has anyone evoked Maxwell's field equations to keep your house from sliding downhill in a rainstorm? Do you account for time dilation on your daily commute?

GR says F != MA. But we treat it as if it does 99% of the time.

>>16728807
If you're talking about for purely practical purposes, then yes, you don't throw out the theory. I'm talking about science in terms of coming to the truth about nature, not just science for pragmatic reasons.

Although I don't know what practical purposes any cosmological theory has (unlike Newtonian physics which has so many)

>>16728865
Science is about pragmatism. It's about what's practical.
If you want to get to "the truth about nature," you're no longer talking about science but metaphysics. You're describing philosophy.

From a purely scientific perspective, a lot of defuct models weren't "wrong," but "incomplete."
>miasma
If you spend a lot of time in a place that smells like shit, you're probably gonna get sick. Germ theory says "yes. Here's why."
>aether
There is an intangible medium in which EM waves propagate. QFT says "yes. And this medium takes the form of a Lorrentz-invariant field which spans the Universe."
>F=MA
Force is a function of mass and acceleration. GR says "yes. And here's some additional caveats."

The incomplete models of today will eventually be superceded by other models which will say to them "yes. And..."

>>16728884
Shut the fuck up faggot. Stop trying to hide behind your semantics and language manipulation.


The world isn’t that complex. All these theories and over complicated jargon is a coverup designed to explain something instead of simply saying I don’t know.


“Stop playing games private either you know it or you don’t.”


-some drill Sargent

>>16728884
>Science is about pragmatism. It's about what's practical.
Science literally comes from the Latin word for "knowledge", practicality is just a side effect. Besides, what's practical about a cosmological theory?
>From a purely scientific perspective, a lot of defuct models weren't "wrong," but "incomplete."
Right, any new theory will give back the correct predictions of the old one while correcting the incorrect predictions.

>>16728891
There's things we know and things we don't know. There's also things we know about things we don't know and things we don't know about things we know.

Alright, cuntish language games aside:
Any 5 year old can ask "why" questions until even the most esteemed experts in a field run out of answers. There is a limit to what humanity knows and likely will ever know. But we learn a little more every day. There's things we know now that we didn't know yesterday and we will learn tomorrow something we don't know today.

>>16728891
nta, but
>observe phenomena
>make theories and mathematical theorems to explain such pehnomena
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
ok then

>>16728894
>what's practical about a cosmological theory?
finding god so we can kill it obviously

>>16728894
>Science literally comes from the Latin word for "knowledge",
And "oriental" literally comes from the Latin word meaning "to rise." Etymology is not a solid argument for what words mean.

>what's practical about a cosmological theory?
Describes the movement of celestial bodies in such a way that prediction matches observation.
"Practical" doesn't just mean "what you, personally, can use in your daily life."

>>16728902
>And "oriental" literally comes from the Latin word meaning "to rise."
The sun rises in the east. That makes perfect sense.
>Etymology is not a solid argument for what words mean.
It is though. The origins of words obviously tell you something about what they mean.
>Describes the movement of celestial bodies in such a way that prediction matches observation.
We already have Newtonian physics for that.

>>16728916
>The sun rises in the east. That makes perfect sense.
And science is about acquiring practical knowledge. That makes perfect sense.

>The origins of words obviously tell you something about what they mean
But not always in a straightforward way. Should I have instead gone with the origin of "faggot?" Went from "bundle of sticks" to "dead weight" to "someone you get to carry dead weight for you" to "protégé" to "cocksucker." And even then I skipped a bunch of steps in between.

>We already have Newtonian physics for that.
Except Newtonian mechanics failed to accurately describe the orbit of Mercury.

>>16728921
>And science is about acquiring practical knowledge
You've yet to show anything practical that's come from a cosmological theory.
>Except Newtonian mechanics failed to accurately describe the orbit of Mercury.
This whole thread is about how modern cosmological theories fail to predict certain observations accurately, yet you were the one saying to not throw the whole theory out because it's still "practical". Newtonian physics has met your criteria of being mostly right/practical.

>>16728930
>You've yet to show anything practical that's come from a cosmological theory.
Yes I did. It accurately describes the movement of celestial bodies.

>you were the one saying to not throw the whole theory out because it's still "practical"
And I stand by that. You use it where it is practical. Where it ceases to function is where you use something else.

>Newtonian physics has met your criteria of being mostly right/practical.
And Newtonian mechanics was a prime example of my whole point that I used earlier in thia thread. We do use Newtonian mechanics where it works. We don't use it where it doesn't. GR helped us get a better grasp of where that line begins and ends.

>>16728933
>It accurately describes the movement of celestial bodies.
But what is practical about that? Newtonian physics already works perfectly well for sending things into orbit or landing them on other planets.

>>16728937
>what is practical about that?
It's the goal.
Practicality is about achieving goals. Whether your goal is "curing cancer" or "slicing your dick lengthwise with razor wire" is irrelevant. Science is the process of figuring out how to do the thing you want to do.

The goal of many cosmologists is to accurately describe the motion of celestial bodies. "Why" is not important.

>>16728438
>>16728891
You seem to be a very narrow minded chud to be browsing /sci/

>>16727724 (OP)
>why is so hard for scientists acknowledge their mistakes?
The whole BB BS is so obviously an moronic idiocy hat even in the stupid brains of/sci posters some little light flickers up. So they steer the whole dumbness to new theories, Same dumbness or worse, but it's proven that this works and gains good income and pensions (the only goal that matters).

>>16728941
>It's the goal.
The goal for who? If you did a survey of cosmologists do you think most would say their goal is come to knowledge about the universe via making theories, or would they say their goal is purely in and of itself to make theories?
>The goal of many cosmologists is to accurately describe the motion of celestial bodies
The goal of many cosmologists is to learn about the world, and they do that through accurately describing the motion of celestial bodies

>Scientists for the longest time thought something came from nothing by way of quantum uncertainty LOOOOL
>HALF OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CANT EVEN TELL YOU WHAT A WOMAN IS
This honestly
It’s just embarrassing how far we’ve fallen

>>16728957
At this point we're just arguing semantics sp I'll just drop it or concede or whatever makes you happy.

What's important here is that you don't fully drop a model because some edge cases exist where it does not apply. Even in this lofty "learning about the nature of reality" sense, science can still be done with the less-accurate model and achieve sufficiently accurate results. Newtonian physics can perfectly describe the biting force of a gecko, but quantum mechanics is required to accurately describe how its feet stick to walls. If something supercedes QM, that QM description of a gecko's foot doesn't become any less accurate. It simply defines the range in which that model does and does not yield accurate results.

>>16728976
>What's important here is that you don't fully drop a model because some edge cases exist where it does not apply.
And like I originally said, if practicality is all you're concerned with then I agree ("practicality" meaning applications that actually improve people's lives), but if your goal is to learn about nature then the edge cases are exactly where scientific progress happens.

I'll never understand why people think academia is one big club where everyone's keeping secrets and shit. Everyone's always trying to poke holes in each other's arguments, shit if it came to physics and what we knew being wrong then people would be froathing at the mouth to push their papers through for that sweet, sweet funding.

>>16728994
You're missing the point I was making with the gecko thing.
Two different models were used to get an accurate description of an animal's biology. That fits directly into "learning about nature."
There are people working on the edge cases to develop new physics. But there are also many, as of yet unanswered, questions that lie well within the range of what present models are capable of answering. You don't put a halt on all that research just because the other guys haven't finished working out the edge cases yet.

>>16728999
>if it came to physics and what we knew being wrong then people would be froathing at the mouth to push their papers through for that sweet, sweet funding.
Fucking this. Remember what happened to Alzheimer's research the moment the amyloid paper got retracted?

>>16727724 (OP)
Because all of their funding and career foundations rely on false assumptions and incorrect calculations, etc.

>>16728891
nta but what's your math background?

>>16727756
>scientists are like plumbers
True, and wise

>>16727781
Yes, the OP picture is literally scientists fishing for alternative theories from their social media accounts.

>>16729958
I don't know how to tell you this.. but those aren't scientists. Same with this retard >>16728165

>>16729993
Then what are astronomers if not astronomical scientists, if astronomy isn't the science of cosmology?

>>16728165
>limited data, overfit model
>more data, discard model
Who cares if some tenured faggot is a laughing stock. He still gets a paycheck as a worthless old conjure

>>16727830
>plasma cosmology, etc. are all "fringe" ideas that do have backing from serious physicists.
Nope. PC is literally dead. There were like 3 people who worked on it, mostly Aflven. All of whom are long dead. It is not being worked on by serious physicists. it couldn't even explain the observations of the 80's, much less today.


>>16727942
>Another important side note is that the observed extra galactic super filaments of the universe are so incredibly and insanely massive in theory that they could not have formed within 14 billion years
Wrong.
astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors

>>16727776
No Einstein called it is his greatest blunder because he was implying that the correct value of the Cosmological Constant could be directly inferred from General Relativity, which is not the case and has been demonstrated numerous times with observations of accelerated expansion and then recanting of such. In fact, Einstein's greatest blunder was saying anything at all about it being a blunder, because it reveals not just a fragile and insecure ego, but one which had not developed beyond the age of a 7 year old.

>>16727724 (OP)
We will never know the truth, it's all so pointless, we're too retarded for the universe

>>16727759
lol if this is ironic its a great post

if its not you are retarded. religion(s) of which there are many segregations, does not have their shit figured out, even after thousands of years. meanwhile imperical science as we know it has only been around for a few centuries relative to religion which has been around since the dawn of man but never in a cosistent manner long term. but yeah lets make science more religion, rape ₣or science!! and more singing, and praying. pray extra hard, prayer room at the new hadron collider built underneath israel lets gooo

>>16727724 (OP)
science is about correcting old mistakes with new ones, if you don't get it you never made it through the basic layer, your a brainlet, ngmi and you might as well kys
tl;dr kys retard

>>16731692
when will we get too a point where we have no mistakes and we figure everything out? never? is our reality that complex and hard to figure out?

>>16732210
>When will we count every number, are there really that many numbers?