What we know, we know subject to correction; we know it because all, or at least the weight, of the evidence supports it, but we are not and cannot be certain that new evidence will not sometime invalidate what we now believe is true.

Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren.

Until Albert Einstein came along with his theory of relativity, there was a concept called aether, or ether, that was used to describing the behavior of light. This was a substance or material that permeated space providing a medium through which light and gravity could travel.

If you read a book on the history of physics in the 19th century and the first few years of the 20th century, you will see that scientists accepted this ether as the explanation for many physical phenomena.

There were countless experiments trying to confirm the existence of this substance, but no evidence was found. Then, came the theory of relativity explaining the propagation of light without using the concept of ether. Little by little this concept fell in disuse.

I’m not saying we should reject our current scientific explanations but that we ought not to hold scientific explanations as if they were religious dogmas (those have their place).

Our current scientific knowledge depends on the technology that we have available to tests our hypothesis. In the future, we may have better tools and maybe we could find even better explanations.

Anyways, our current knowledge has brought us many advances: rocket landings, the internet, planes, ships, digital ads, phones, computers, artificial intelligence (or better called statistical-cognitive services), new medicines and medical procedures, more ads, social media, new telescopes, and yeah, a bit more ads.

Conclusion

So, if the conspiranoics, the normies, the wokes, the nerds, or the experts tell to “not believe or believe in science”, remember that “believe” is not the right verb alongside science.

Science should be about how to think and how to test those thoughts and see if they hold explanatory power, not about holding a belief. Yes, listen to the different sides, but also do your own reading and ask your own questions.

We should worry the day we hear the answer to the question Why is this? as “Science, aaaaah!!!” without further explanation.

Science must not become the new dogma, and the scientists the new priests.

Cheers!