In the sense that the falsifiable knowledge is wrong, outside of maybe psychiatry, negligible. We're finally beginning to get beyond the Theory of Relativity, these days, FI, and some of the experiments could have been done in a garage, just as well as a fancy lab (and important aspect if this to understand is that each well-proven theory is closer to actual reality than the last one, not the ultimate answer). If largely wrong physical systems were proposed, they'd be shredded to pieces. There's a great degree to which it is nearly impossible to make believable lies about the physical sciences.
It's also important to understand that in many fields, common knowledge isn't the standard. FI, the Big Bang was gone with as it fit the bill well enough for a long time, and helped to figure other things out. But, it's never been 100%, or even 90%, accepted, by any amateur or professional in any field that has to think about the universe' past. It was accepted that it wasn't accepted, though, with few zealots or anything about it. That happens in other sciences, too. There are many open questions, and a lot of the time, they go with the accepted thing, if it helps further their work, without necessarily 100% endorsing the accepted thing.
In the sense that they omit much that they don't understand, or which the materialist worldview denies, OTOH, 100% they are making excuses, and molding people with open minds to close them. That's one if the reasons there is a bathtub curve in belief in a creator, in STEM. Those with the talent to go far get beyond the BS, while those unable to get mired in it.
Personally, having looked at, recently, germ and terrain theory, I'm not prepared to discount viruses. There is still too much that terrain theory doesn't cover, that modern germ theory does, too much evidence for viruses, too little evidence against. That said, if we modeled public policy around terrain theory, and gave it it's due, we would all be much healthier, and probably be able to make serious progress in real health care, rather than making people sickly for pharma profits. The truth isn't in the middle, so much as both could be useful stepping stones towards getting closer to a single theory that handles the cases both clearly get right.
Thats the thing about theories they are only good until they find something to replace. Einsteins theory of relativity only works if there is one black hole. Scientists believe there are more than one black hole and causes the theory to break but no one wants to talk about it. Another example of science being based on bad science.
In the sense that the falsifiable knowledge is wrong, outside of maybe psychiatry, negligible. We're finally beginning to get beyond the Theory of Relativity, these days, FI, and some of the experiments could have been done in a garage, just as well as a fancy lab (and important aspect if this to understand is that each well-proven theory is closer to actual reality than the last one, not the ultimate answer). If largely wrong physical systems were proposed, they'd be shredded to pieces. There's a great degree to which it is nearly impossible to make believable lies about the physical sciences.
It's also important to understand that in many fields, common knowledge isn't the standard. FI, the Big Bang was gone with as it fit the bill well enough for a long time, and helped to figure other things out. But, it's never been 100%, or even 90%, accepted, by any amateur or professional in any field that has to think about the universe' past. It was accepted that it wasn't accepted, though, with few zealots or anything about it. That happens in other sciences, too. There are many open questions, and a lot of the time, they go with the accepted thing, if it helps further their work, without necessarily 100% endorsing the accepted thing.
In the sense that they omit much that they don't understand, or which the materialist worldview denies, OTOH, 100% they are making excuses, and molding people with open minds to close them. That's one if the reasons there is a bathtub curve in belief in a creator, in STEM. Those with the talent to go far get beyond the BS, while those unable to get mired in it.
Personally, having looked at, recently, germ and terrain theory, I'm not prepared to discount viruses. There is still too much that terrain theory doesn't cover, that modern germ theory does, too much evidence for viruses, too little evidence against. That said, if we modeled public policy around terrain theory, and gave it it's due, we would all be much healthier, and probably be able to make serious progress in real health care, rather than making people sickly for pharma profits. The truth isn't in the middle, so much as both could be useful stepping stones towards getting closer to a single theory that handles the cases both clearly get right.
Thats the thing about theories they are only good until they find something to replace. Einsteins theory of relativity only works if there is one black hole. Scientists believe there are more than one black hole and causes the theory to break but no one wants to talk about it. Another example of science being based on bad science.
The physical sciences have reduced to pragmatism, not truth
Isn't there effectively no evidence for viruses other than the occasional cluster of people getting sick?
What is it that you would like terrain theory to cover?
Global warming... although that's not even science.