Why do scientists often speak as if they are certain when every

>>8890733
Because in practice, it is pretty clear which parts of our current understanding are likely to change in the future, and which parts are set in stone and beyond all reasonable doubt.

>>8890740
Sounds like pure arrogance.

>>8890742
I'm sure it does. It's still true.

>>8890758
You have no idea if it's true, so why are you speaking like you're an authority? Into popscience?

>>8890760
>You have no idea if it's true,
What makes you think that? Are you aware of the fact that sometimes, other people can know something you don't?

>so why are you speaking like you're an authority?
I am not. Pretty much every scientist will agree with this.

>Into popscience?
What does pop science have to do with anything?

>>8890770
Holy shit, you are one dense motherfucker. Those earlier "facts" were thought of the same way, moron. This isn't difficult to grasp but it seems like you have autism.

>>8890733
Imagine if you were talking about gravity instead of genders and think about how dumb that sounds. We take shit to be true if it can't be disproven. If it's disproven later we go back and change the model. This whole "oh no what if it turns out we're wrong" is a retarded mindset to do science in.

>>8890733
They don't.
How many scientists have you spoken to, hmm? None, clickbait articles and popsci personalities (who spread misinformation) are not scientists or the scientific community.

>>8890733
It's cumbersome to insert phrases like "may," "could be," etc. into every uncertain statement.

Also, these uncertainty words keep being used by politicians and advertisers to generate half-truths.

>>8890733
>every scientific theory other than the ones "in effect" now have been proven wrong
But why are they all wrong? Because they were replaced/enhanced by the newer theories. That literally means it's less likely that our new theories get replaced.

>>8890758
Nothing is absolute. Even the most surefire of things are not immune to error.