Generally, Anonymous, natural sciences aim to find facts. But even these are not trusted by some super intelligent folks. But a carbon dioxide molecule does not care whether someone believes in it or not. It just does what it does according to its chemical and physical properties. The same goes for, for instance, a virus.
Wikipedia is pretty reliable.
People complain about it because someone can modify it, but only the modifications that are verified with references stay. The most accurate information stays. B.S gets rejected before it’s even public.
Most sources/sites don’t use references or evolve to become more and more accurate over time. The people who don’t trust it belong with the flat earther types.
No reason to argue. Both statements are true.
Opinion – a belief not necessarily supported by facts.
That’s your opinion
And where, in this world, are we to find these “facts” you speak of? The media? The Government, academy? I think perhaps not.
Generally, Anonymous, natural sciences aim to find facts. But even these are not trusted by some super intelligent folks. But a carbon dioxide molecule does not care whether someone believes in it or not. It just does what it does according to its chemical and physical properties. The same goes for, for instance, a virus.
Wikipedia is pretty reliable.
People complain about it because someone can modify it, but only the modifications that are verified with references stay. The most accurate information stays. B.S gets rejected before it’s even public.
Most sources/sites don’t use references or evolve to become more and more accurate over time. The people who don’t trust it belong with the flat earther types.
Completely agree
Hmmmm…