Continuing from yesterday

       Here I would like to explain the example I gave yesterday: why scientists, through rigorous and logical scientific research, arrive at absurd conclusions and yet treat them as gospel, is largely due to being overly optimistic about conclusions based on subjective assumptions.

       Looking from a God's-eye view, people are not on the street but in office buildings because of their different identities and professions (that is, these people have different functions and roles in society), so one cannot lump them together with people on the street; this is error number one. Looking from a God's-eye view, it is people sitting at desks working hard + men being prone to hair loss that led to the reduction of 'hair', or rather, what truly caused the reduction of 'hair' is the environment the individual is subjected to—all factors in this environment have only a correlation with the reduction of 'hair', not a causal relationship. Similar examples include 'smoking causes lung cancer', 'car exhaust causes global warming', or 'because I ate 10 ice creams at 2 AM yesterday and had a stomachache today, eating at 2 AM causes a stomachache the next day'; these are all cases of optimistically magnifying one of many factors and treating correlation as causation. This is error number two. Then, regarding the glowing head, we know it is because a lack of hair makes the top of the head reflect light more easily, but from the sequence of the researchers' discoveries, they found the 'glow' first, then discovered the 'lack of hair'. Although research proved the upstream/downstream order of 'glow' and 'hair', the real cause is determined by more fundamental physical laws, and according to the logic of the researchers in their 'God' perspective, they would never reach that level. Finally, we are very clear that making people unable to move is not a substitute for sitting inside a building; even if they are inside a building, it still requires male members to toil for months to see 'hair reduction' and 'glowing'. This is where researchers subjectively and arrogantly magnified the specific differences between two types of people. There are so many differences between people inside and outside, but the researchers deemed they had picked out the most core difference—'moving versus not moving'. These errors, layered on top of each other, eventually led to a conclusion that seems logical but is full of holes.

       Let's return to a concrete real-world example. One type of cell divides constantly without showing any signs of fatigue, exhibiting a 'long-lived' phenomenon; another type of cell shows obvious division inhibition after 5-10 generations, exhibiting 'short-lived' characteristics. First, can these two types of cells even be compared together? Is the huge difference they manifest a result caused by different 'lifespans', or the cause of the 'lifespan'? Does a different 'lifespan' really have anything to do with the characteristic differences we observe (cells maintaining division activity)? Are the characteristics we observe really the true differences between the different types of cells? Scientists actually have no good way to solve these cognitive problems. The most effective method we have is repeated verification, repeating the demonstration, everyone debating it together, and trying to form a 'common sense consensus', as well as constant falsification—trying every way to prove the viewpoint is wrong. Only when a viewpoint has become 'we all know it without needing to say it' and 'we cannot prove this is wrong', can we put aside our worries and say 'it is indeed so'. But even then, it is highly likely to be overturned in the future. This is also why scientists cannot say things like 'GMO food is harmless' or say early in the epidemic that 'COVID-19 is definitely transmissible from person to person', because even if the evidence is abundant, we still consider it insufficient.

PS1: The 'hair' example was inspired by a junior fellow student who has already gone bald; I solemnly declare here that I have no intention of offending anyone

PS2: When typing long text and hitting enter, the page doesn't automatically scroll down

PS3: My own 'hair' is even longer and denser than my avatar's