At first I didn’t think much of this article, but by the end, I thought it was a good provocative effort at defining something very slippery.
What is it to feel sure about something? What does it mean to have provisional knowledge? What is ‘true’?
He doesn’t offer any flashes of spectacular illumination - but it’s a good to review of the problem of science vs truth.
Considering what a big deal right-wing religious types make about need for certainty, absolute knowledge, and such myths -
its something to think about and to be able to discuss more easily, so I applaud Zat.
Why Science Is Wrong, by Zat Rana
For example, when Einstein finalized the Theory of General Relativity, it disproved a lot of Newton’s work.
It painted a more accurate picture of what was actually going on.
That said, it doesn’t mean that Newton’s laws aren’t still highly usable and relevant to most activities.
Over time, we get closer and closer to the truth by being less wrong.
We will likely never be completely right in our ability to understand the world. There is way too much complexity. ...
Science is always wrong, and assigning boundaries to what we think we know is how we limit the possibility of an advancing future.
It’s worth being careful about how you define truth. ...