TBH there’s no such thing as scientific “truth”. There’s varying level of evidence and varying levels of certainty.

Articles that flatten various scientific results into simply being “true” are actually pseudo-scientific. They present a true/false dichotomy that doesn’t actually exist. They’re lumping things with excellent evidence with things that are far less sure, but none of them are “true” in the logical/mathematical/scientific sense.

This doesn’t help science or make people smarter. It just makes people less critical and more accepting of “authorities” like this shitty website. This is part of why USA is full of people who “love science” but are scientifically illiterate.

Fun fact - facts don’t care if they’re popular or not.

the universe is still expanding

Truth: the data can be interpreted that the universe is expanding. Important difference.

And exactly this little trick is the exploit of the human mind the right-wingers abuse.

Edit: not that this article is rightwing or anything.

Well, it was an interesting article, and I agree with all their points. I’m not sure what I expected. The article was a bit more wide-ranging than just a list of facts. Yes, it did predictably start off with climate denialism, but it went other directions too. Worth a read.

Edit … Heh. I’ve rescanned it a few times. I love the way the guy shits on AI on the way out the door. Good work.

More edit … um … this guy’s a freeeak. Love it. He’s got a podcast called Starts With A Bang. He looks like Dr. Robotnik.

#6 is some pretty heavy editorializing

Many minimize or even deny this outright, but it remains true whether anyone believes it or not.

Come on, at least quantify “unpopular”