You seem to have a problem separating your realities. Science in its pure form deals in facts. Scientists have a political reality to deal with, as well as a crushing cast system. You have a severe misunderstanding of what science is.
This is the way Heinlein addressed this exact problem:
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness. A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts.
Expanded Universe: The New Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein, 1980, pp. 480-481
You proclaim all things you believe to be scientific fact, because you are a scientist, cool, that means you can never be wrong. As far as "proclaim[ing] all things you believe to be scientific fact" -- I'm afraid you have it exactly backwards.
A fact can be defined as "an observation confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers." Because of this repeated confirmation, facts are accorded a great deal of confidence in science.
Hypotheses and theories then attempt to explain those facts.
Nowhere does "belief" enter into this process. And nowhere does science proclaim our data or theories to be "TRUTH" -- that is left for religion.
Rather, scientific theories are the current best explanations for a particular set of facts. Those theories must explain the facts, and must not be contradicted by any applicable facts. And over time, as new data arises, those theories are subject to modification or falsification.
That is why we don't claim that status of "truth" or "TRVTH" for our theories. And that is a significant way in which science differs from religions, which generally do claim "truth" or "TRVTH" for their beliefs.
That is why we don't claim that status of "truth" or "TRVTH" for our theories. And that is a significant way in which science differs from religions, which generally do claim "truth" or "TRVTH" for their beliefs. You are so full of yourself, and this is such B$.
Nowhere does "belief" enter into this process. And nowhere does science proclaim our data or theories to be "TRUTH" -- that is left for religion.
No you usually disguise that belief by declaring anything you disagree with to be untrue, but all the same, it makes your position true, by default, since nothing else is true.
So many Scientist, so little time
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
Russina Scientist say
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.
I was sure Scientist declared we have man induced Global Warming, er Climate Change, which ones should I believe since Scientist always tell the truth.
