Can the science really be settled?


Can the science really be settled? Over recent years we’ve heard more and more arguments about how settled the science might be according to one’s own perspectives, data sets, and ideological inclinations.

Science is supposed to be challenged, questioned, tested, and scrutinized.

That’s the entire point.

If that isn’t permissible and the basic lines of inquiry are censored or taboo, then it’s not science, but secular dogma.

Can the science really be settled?The science is settled is an unscientific statement.

Without challenge and disagreement science never advances. Newton, Einstein, and Galileo are all good examples of pushing against the so-called settled science.

The people who think questioning the science is wrong or hateful, are the same people who bought into the bill of goods we’ve all come to know as science fiction.

It’s all right that we ignore those people. Newton, Einstein, and Galileo didn’t listen to them, and neither should we, because Newton, Einstein, and Galileo have already proven that the science can never be settled.

Even Newton’s law of viscosity was challenged:

As an example of non-settled science, there were those who continued the scientific process by questioning Newton’s law of viscosity.

See video below:


A non-Newtonian fluid is a fluid that does not follow Newton’s law of viscosity, i.e. viscosity is not constant and it’s a function of the stress applied.

Although the concept of viscosity is commonly used in fluid mechanics to characterize the shear properties of a fluid, it can be inadequate to describe non-Newtonian fluids. They are best studied through several other rheological properties that relate stress and strain rate tensors under many different flow conditions—such as oscillatory shear or extensional flow—which are measured using different devices or rheometers. The properties are better studied using tensor-valued constitutive equations, which are common in the field of continuum mechanics.

As we progress, we may even discover that the current climate sciences of the day might be inadequate to describe the actual climate processes that surround us and as with any other discipline (Newton’s law of viscosity), climate science should be challenged in order to bring a better understanding of just how dynamic our earth can really be.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here