/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15293249
The fact of the matter is that the science has an innate tendency to be constantly doubting and triple checking itself.
Various Sophists from the age before Amy scientific method was established preached that rhetorical dominance is the only thing that matters (and in a way it did, specifically in the democratic Athenian system for example)
If you feel frustrated with the fact that you have to constantly be dragged into debates with Sophists and others that for different reasons (not all malicious) reject "the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained" (which is the definition of science on the 1st page of Google), that's nothing new.
It's a historic norm for it to under constant pressure of that kind and it, is in a way, a system trying to adjust itself because academia became too rigid, arrogant and self-absorbed due to it's sucseeses at the turn of the millennium going to it's proverbial head (you may say "what successes? There's only stagnation" and that's the point)
So yeah, it is kind of weird and exhausting to have to argue with actual schizophrenics and bots about the nature of the observable universe, but it is kind of a long standing tradition and is needed to keep the mind fresh

PS I wish they had more humour and humility like Diogenes or something