Ricardo Harvin<p>So yes, <a href="https://mstdn.social/tags/scirnce" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>scirnce</span></a> and <a href="https://mstdn.social/tags/scientists" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>scientists</span></a> do make, and have always made, absolute pronouncements that are later proven false or incomplete even when following the <a href="https://mstdn.social/tags/ScientificMethod" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ScientificMethod</span></a>.</p><p>Who's to say the hallowed, revered <a href="https://mstdn.social/tags/scientific" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>scientific</span></a> <a href="https://mstdn.social/tags/method" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>method</span></a> itself may not one to be proven to be flawed..?</p>