SLCW on Nostr: Science can always be wrong. But the nature of science is that it's self-correcting, ...
Science can always be wrong. But the nature of science is that it's self-correcting, and it builds on itself. And when it's wrong, it's very rarely completely wrong. It's usually a particular conclusion that was based on relatively weak evidence is superceded when higher-quality evidence is developed that supports a different conclusion. And it's literally never deemed wrong by the judicial opinion of a single layperson. If the scientific consensus related to fluoride is going to be overturned, it's going to be because some revolutionary, indisputable new evidence is developed by relevant subject-matter experts, and their published research is so compelling, and confirmed through the peer-review process that it forces the entire scientific establishment to rethink the entire multi-decade body of knowledge the current consensus is based on. This is why I say that it's misleading and ultimately irrelevant what some judge says. It has no relevance and no impact on the established science.
Published at
2024-09-26 06:39:33Event JSON
{
"id": "3f78406946ed93054a0d43a1208e82849d82d56136efb075f0e9e8375badb6ab",
"pubkey": "65912a7ad17fd5cf3bacce9759f3bea3a44f9a3397340e559cf067945dc638bf",
"created_at": 1727332773,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7aa6cbd0d9a0329aff635c872876a29110449636bd74954f692eef319382a70a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4ad48dff7536a0d7062e57ad6d461b83fd3cc4797f12e35b15436156e899ee71"
],
[
"e",
"c9eff3c4fc9f10fc496fcd031d725d4a8b5b6bf1194d7ace1df6cdbb0705acd6",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"65912a7ad17fd5cf3bacce9759f3bea3a44f9a3397340e559cf067945dc638bf"
],
[
"p",
"83d302b5c25ed43e5b75532fa6a6bda21c4b63e9f516826798f516fc4159b9c7"
]
],
"content": "Science can always be wrong. But the nature of science is that it's self-correcting, and it builds on itself. And when it's wrong, it's very rarely completely wrong. It's usually a particular conclusion that was based on relatively weak evidence is superceded when higher-quality evidence is developed that supports a different conclusion. And it's literally never deemed wrong by the judicial opinion of a single layperson. If the scientific consensus related to fluoride is going to be overturned, it's going to be because some revolutionary, indisputable new evidence is developed by relevant subject-matter experts, and their published research is so compelling, and confirmed through the peer-review process that it forces the entire scientific establishment to rethink the entire multi-decade body of knowledge the current consensus is based on. This is why I say that it's misleading and ultimately irrelevant what some judge says. It has no relevance and no impact on the established science. ",
"sig": "e6ca2e2e7a11fdf6199148903eaf8cd1049998f514906886858b40716535b5d5287ef31712cdde771ddff20f45b44218616cd3ffc9b33e6faa5d780a0e1b8e6b"
}