I remember a friend who was studying one of the sciences at a more advanced level telling me the diagram/ understanding of an atom we were taught at school was wrong. That was irritating but then- perhaps understandable if it's established that a mind that age can't grasp the complexities of the (current thinking of) reality. Would we be so keen on learning things if we were also told they weren't true? What would be the point? You need to learn this formula- even if it isn't accurate!
I agree though. Surely the whole driving force behind science is the ability to question, study something and be open to changing our hypothesis based on the evidence.
Maybe we accept certain things for the sake of simplicity. But true- we should retain the underlying awareness that a lot is based on hypothesis. Still- hypothesis with a bunch of evidence still seems stronger- to my mind than blind belief.
The very act of questioning/ observing/ testing- which is what science does teach- is intrinsic. We wouldn't be doing experiements with bunsen burners in order to test for ourselves if all it was about was learning facts. They'd simply write the answers on the blackboard. Learning science in part is about applying a method of study to a question/ problem.
Maybe you're refering more to people quoting scientific 'fact'. But then, those ideas came from scientists- surely? Maybe we put too much faith that they bothered to research thoroughly before coming up with something. But then- I know I don't have the intelligence of someone like Stephen Hawking. If I had an eternity, I doubt I'd be able to work out the things he did. I'd rather put trust in him- knowing that he's highly regarded in his field rather than some random person who claims they've seen fairies. They could have been hallucinating. I had the crazziest vision last night when I just woke up. Thankfully, it doesn't happen during waking hours. But, I imagine scientists themselves will emphasize they are creating working theories.
What would you use instead to test a theory though? Can you find the answer even? Maybe that's the most annoying part. That even the best scientific approach may not yield answers to some of the big questions.
For instance- let's say God does exist but, for whatever bizarre reason, they don't want to be found. God is presumably many more times more intelligent than humans so therefore- we will potentially never find them- no matter how advanced science gets- if they don't want us to.
I imagine some things are extremely difficult to prove or disprove. We can use the scientific method and rational reasoning to produce likely models but, we may never get to the truth over some things. It's still good to try though- I think. Most especially to question dogmatic things like religion. Religion's were often written by humans. Humans have their own agenda.
I think it's important to use critical thinking whilst 'consuming' anything. But, I'd argue that the younger generations are in fact more likely to do that. With the internet came a couple of things. Availability to research. It's likely harder for politicians to do corrupt and questionnable things without the evidence being plastered all over social media.
With AI coming in, I think people will become more and more aware of fake news. So, my suspicion is that people will in fact start to question more, rather than less. Especially the motives behind being fed a certain message. Surely- to question, validate, search for authentic evidence is the scientific method in practice?
