[roysting]

I agree. I also appreciate how the commenter feels at peace with acknowledging and accepting the fact that he does not want to guess because we simply do not have enough information and may never have enough.

It’s exactly what frustrates me so much about supposed “scientists” like the one quoted in the article; they say “we don’t know what something is for” then these “scientists” offer and apply all kinds of fanciful imaginative purposes and state them with authority that people accept.

I think it should be professionally disqualifying for scientists to propose any kind of theory or fanciful and imaginative purpose unless there has been rigorous debate and there is a solid theory backed by multiple points of evidence. Making unverifiable claims based on internal imagination and biases does not help and can even cause corruption of science, as I know for a fact happens.

You only have to hear “scientists” with PhDs openly say variations of the following most egregious example; “I just draw the graph and then look for the data to support it”, to know why sciences are so corrupted in many places.

I understand why people do it, especially if it’s your life, but science is largely about the disciplining human nature, something that seems to be crumbling and failing in many ways across many domains in the American empire.