Presenting scientific consensus as “fact” is harmful, because it means that it will be harder to change that “fact” when more data is available.
Scientists are humans, but what makes their consensus trustworthy is their commitment to a process of forming testable hypotheses, gathering data, getting rid of confounding noise, and publishing their results. Thence, a model of reality is constructed, and a consensus—a belief—is agreed upon.
But NEW DATA MUST RESULT IN REVISED MODELS. That is good, and that defines progress.
Labeling consensus as “fact” undermines the idea that MODELS WILL CHANGE as more data come in. A “fact” is an immutable truth, and a reporting a change in scientific “facts” over time will undermine trust in scientists much more than the phrase “scientists believe”.
The problem with the phrase “scientists believe” is not the “believe” part. It’s the “scientists” part, which has lost public credibility.
Matt Farrah of The Smoking Tire gave an honest and (therefore) devastatingly negative review of the #Cybertruck. Good on him. Every point he makes is spot-on (except maybe the chuckle-inducing post-Apocalypse truck argument).
Image alt text: “News article titled: Portugal is averaging 91% renewable electricity in 2024, with Europe’s lowest power prices, by Nick Hedley, dated May 2024” https://mastodon.social/
I love it when Apple does things like these: whimsical and natural-feeling details that make the device easier to use. Kudos to the team. Beautiful work. https://www.threads.net/@snazzyq/post/C7CpmYevMwf
@Aaron That was exactly what came to mind. That shining chrome animation was so expensive to run those days, because the accelerometer was way more power hungry.