Would you say that a 'known scientific 'fact' could be proven incorrect by more scientific study & then the previous 'know scientific fact' would no longer be such.
No, I wouldn't say that because it almost never happens. Theories on the other hand are proven incorrect a little more often, but even that is relatively rare and when it does happen it is usually with theories which were always acknowledged to be far from certain in the first place.
There has been no where near the scientific study in certain areas for some of what is put forth as 'fact' to be legitimately called fact.
Wrong. Almost everything Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave and Pat Johnson and Mike Page and maybe a couple of others state as fact actually is fact, and very often the proof has even been given on here.
The problem, and I explained this catch 22 to you recently and there really isn't a nicer way to put it other than to flatly state the truth, is that you just aren't intelligent enough and knowledgeable enough to understand the proof. That doesn't in all cases mean that you are dumb. In many cases you don't understand simply because you are being lazy and closed minded and refuse to give the understanding of something a solid open-minded effort, but sometimes some things are just simply beyond the understanding of most people. If everyone was capable of being a physicist or scientist of similar qualifications then most would have been a physicist or other similarly talented scientist instead of whatever they became instead.
You need to learn that just because you don't get something doesn't mean that it isn't true. You need to start deferring a bit more to those that are clearly more intelligent and more educated on a topic than you instead of thinking you know everything and that nobody could ever teach you anything. You will learn a whole lot more that way and be much better and more knowledgeable for it.
Wording & attitude can be rather misleading to those that do not know any better. Do some individuals have motives for such or are they just naive about the reality?
The problem is that you often simply lack the intelligence and knowledge to know fact from theory, not that the wrong terminology was being used. You similarly lack the capacity to understand the proof when the proof is given to you.
I'm not the only one that knows that a lack of sufficient study has been done. I guess those few others have just learned that it's not worth the abuse to tell the truth about that in public & possibly squelch the favorite myths of some.
90% of what you call theory and that "lack of sufficient study has been done" is actually settled fact and you just lack the capacity to understand it. And most of the other 10% while still theory and not yet indisputable proof, is 98+% likely to be the way the "science" guys are saying it likely is based on the evidence. You would still have to be a fool to put your belief in the alternative 2% likely theory, and particularly if you are utterly dismissive of the 98% likely to be true theory that almost all the evidence supports as you typically are.
I may soon join them but I am a big supporter of the real truth vs truth based on conjectured. And I am also not a fan of others being misled.
Oh the irony. You are one of the very worst offenders of misleading others on this entire site. I know that it isn't intentional and that you just don't know any better, and your motives are sincere, but it doesn't change the truth.
But I & those other few may be up against insurmountable odds.
I hope so. Funnily enough, I feel the same. There are just too many idiots spreading misinformation, and just too many gullible and unknowledgeable people that are too easily influenced by it and can fall for it, and it perpetuates. But I sure hope lightning strikes and you are right on this one for once.
