all i'm saying, i guess in the most obtuse way possible is
science doesn't believe in universal truth. we don't engage with people who do because there is no mechanism THROUGH science to obtain a universal truth
the problem we have is BECAUSE of that when we say "truth" we mean, "accepted to the best of our knowledge and tested every single day"
which leads to the idiotic argument from "universal truthers" who come with the position "if it's TRUTH how come it can be WRONG"
which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science IS
you ACCEPT an axiom to be true in order to build the foundations for debate on things that are built on that assumption
if the axiom is proven false then you accept something else as true and start over
NOTHING is universally true. to claim such would be like saying you know for fact that the fundamental axiom WILL NEVER CHANGE
no one makes that claim. they only say that given what we know. this is the truth we accept
he's not wrong. science (the process) is true whether you believe in it or not
the conclusions from science are always up for debate
so yeah, steakumms didn't really clapback anyone. they argued semantics
and yes neil degrasse is completely full of himself and an insufferable douchnozzle
pretty much retarded
-
idiot police officer drew a lethal weapon on someone not threatening her in the slightest
-
capitol officer defends access to congress from attacker who has god knows what in their backpack trying to come through a breached security bulkhead
chewbacca would kick her ass