/sci/ - Science & Math

It's well known that the scientific method is good at refuting false statements, but not at actually proving a true statement. As such, the best we can do is to pass an hypothesis through multiple tests to raise it's credibility, but not every field uses the same tools to test their theories nor they share the same standards for how rigorous are their tests.
As such, different fields will have different standards of rigor and thus some sciences are more rigorous than other. That is to say, some sciences yield theories that are less likely to be wrong than others. We know that intuitively. It's far easier to trust something produced, say, in Physics, than in, say, Sociology.
However, activists masqueraded as scientists use this lack of rigor to infiltrate in the academia and spread their world views while borrowing the reputation of scientific institutions to back their claims, despite the level of rigor of their theories being quite low. They try to gain credibility by spreading the lie that if it's science, you should blindly trust it, in a make-believe world where all science produced is equally likely to be true.
In some fields, the activist-researcher ratio becomes so high that the activists start to gain power over the various institutions of science, leading to widespread corruption and suppression of speech.
Because the wider public doesn't know how to differentiate between the good theories from the bad ones, the reputation of the entire institution goes to hell.

>>12571035
We can continue to make smaller and smaller units of time so it's continuous but maybe not space
You could argue that there's a smallest unit of space possible, like an atom, and therefore it's discreet