Good meme on science:

[applegrove]

— Deborah Weeks/A Woman for An Eternity (@deborah-10.bsky.social) 2026-03-30T23:59:46.634Z

[calimary]

1. Saved so I can enjoy reading it again

at random times and intervals.

I like saving essays and commentaries like this. It’s validating at a time when the donald would eagerly whitewash and rewrite DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING!!!

[BurnDoubt]

2. AMEN!!!

[littlemissmartypants]

3. I would have said "seeking" but "finding" works because it does happen occasionally.

[-misanthroptimist]

4. There is this idea out there that there are immutable, eternal facts.

There almost certainly aren't such facts. But even if there was such a fact, how could we prove that future piece of information wouldn't modify or negate such a fact? The answer is...we couldn't.

The idea that all knowledge is provisional is the core of the Scientific Method. Scientific conclusions and facts are based on the available evidence. We can never know -no matter how confident we are- if we are in possession of all the relevant information.

[applegrove]

5. Tell that to the astronauts about to go to the dark side of the moon.

Examples of objective reality include physical laws (e.g., gravity), mathematical truths and events that happened regardless of interpretation (e.g., historical dates).

[-misanthroptimist]

6. That's naked assertion

You are, whether you realize it or not, asserting that we know everything about, "physical laws (e.g., gravity), mathematical truths and events that happened regardless of interpretation (e.g., historical dates)." Please demonstrate that no further knowledge exists about any or all of these.

It can't be done. All we can say about any of them is that we have reached the soundest conclusions possible with the evidence that we currently possess.

This is not a weakness. It is a strength, perhaps the greatest strength of the Scientific Method.

[applegrove]

7. No I am not asserting that we know all the laws

of physics or math. But we know enough to send a rocket behind the moon.

[-misanthroptimist]

8. Okay. Then we've had a bit of a miscommunication.

Of course we know things. Whether what we know will be accurate still in a day, or a year, or a million years is unknowable since new discoveries are always possible. We use our current knowledge to do things like space travel...or automobile travel because what we know is good enough to allow it.

I'm not asserting anything except that new knowledge that changes or overturns what we know is always possible. For instance, we will definitely learn more about Relativity. That doesn't mean Relativity is wrong, just incomplete. The same idea holds true for all scientific knowledge. Such humility is necessary if we are to continue learning.

Sorry if I was less than clear.