Re: May I kindly interrupt?

This was well-stated, I thought:


The term "scientifically proven" seems fashionable. Many don't seem to understand what it means.

As far as I understand the term, "Scientific Proof" demands the firm establishment of constants or variables understood entirely, not 'random' variables or variables with an undetermined behavior. However, if such variables need to be stated and included anyway, I think that their nature should be clearly defined initially.

When information is Scientifically proven Valid and Correct, it is or it should be found without fault repeatedly, in a way that it could not or it should not be disproved in any way possible 'as long as all conditions relevant to the event remain equal'. That's my humble opinion.

When information "scientifically proven" fails -according to the prior proposition-, it couldn't or shouldn't have been valid nor correct to begin with. It should have remained a fallacy right from the start. Often it is found that what fails in such cases is not Truth nor Science, if that Science is based entirely on undisputable facts. If the science has 'faults' in it [a poor foundation of knowledge], then it's bound to falter sooner or later anyway.

In my opinion, the failures in such cases often occur after a poor application of the solid principles necessary for the accumulation of knowledge, something bound to lead eventually to methods applied poorly, to the formulation and "validation" of incomplete or faulty arguments, and eventually to delusions and lies. I call this stuff 'Bad Science'. There is great evidence that seems to lend a strong support to it.

I suggest that you examine and study the meanings of "Scientific Truths" a bit closer before choosing to make [loose] assertions in that regard. I've heard that it's rarely wise for a student to go around stating "facts" without a proper foundation. Usually, I've observed, that's how 'Dogma' starts to form and to grow. Arrogance often follows. Tweet