Why humans are bad at science.

So. Some of you might recall my discussion/rant on the chatbox recently about science / faith / belief and how humans falter. We have a new growing example, and this expose elaborates quite clearly on all the parts.

We keep proving, again and again, that we are bad at science. The scientific method can only go so far; one must actually use it for it to work. One cannot simply deny what the evidence states simply because they do not agree with the statement; aka the now infamous "What would change your mind" question from the Bill Nye / Ken Ham dialogue. Another one from recent times would be the reclassification of Pluto and the backlash of that. Media, professional or otherwise, continues to spread information without verification. Large quantities of verifiable, repeatable, emperical evidence are required for all claims, and without it one should remain skeptical of said claims. Indeed, even with such a bounty, we must remain aware of bias and interpretation - what goals and designs were they planning on? There are no such things as facts. People associate facts as unchanging, unending, "always truths". No. There are hypothesis and theories, with or without supporting evidence to back them up. "It's not what we know that hurts us, it's what we know that just isn't so." Or, if you prefer media quotes, reference Men In Black's "Think of what you'll know tomorrow" speech / lines. The continued propagation of current thought spectrums down these same lines is what breeds history's repetitive cycle.

/endrantputtingupsoapbox