Is "settled science" the most unscientific term possible?

>>8698631
I've only heard science detractors use the word "settled science"

>>8699045
Man I can't fucking stand Lawrence Krauss, what an egotistical cunt. He tried to argue science was the reason for womens rights.

The best questions, get the least replies.

yes, I fucking hate hearing that term. Some historic examples of "settled science" are the brain's purpose being cooling blood and the sun circling the earth

>>8699046
I hear it thrown around a lot in arguments about evolution

>>8699868
>I hear it thrown around a lot in arguments about evolution
ehmm ehm climate change

>>8699874
yeah that too
most people have the bad habit of thinking something becomes more true if they confidently assert that it is

>>8699045
why is the first quote of dawkins on the "negative" side? that's a good way to define a portion of philosophy.

>>8700034
I say that every time I see it posted. Also the second one, afaik, was used in the context of asking why he doesn't consider creationism a valid avenue of study.

>>8698631
Eh kind of. It depends how its used, for example if I said "the science on special relativity is settled" I doubt that I'd get much pushback from that. However if when I said it I implicitly meant that "you must never, ever argue against special relativity" I would expect people it react fairly hostilely to that. Now normally that phrase is used in the context of climate change denialism, in which case I'd say "the science is settled on climate change" to mean the first instance. Sure go investigate other avenues if you want, but as it stands all evidence points the same way. So yes, the science is settled.

>>8699885
> "thinking" something becomes more true if they confidently assert that it is
More like 'believing."