Seriously, I never would’ve guessed that my most unpopular opinion on lemmy would be “murdering people vaguely connected to your problem because you’re angry is bad”.
This wasn’t an ideological act or whatever, the assassin’s mother was brainwashed and financially ruined her family, he was angry because of that (so because the church caused his mother to ruin the family, it’s a personal grudge against the church because it affected him), wanted to kill the head of the church, but couldn’t, so 20 years later he settled for Abe since he was accessible and supported the church (as the party did before him).
The assassin could’ve exposed and drew attention to the church and their connections in various ways, instead he shot an old man at the end of his career. I am all for exposing corruption and malpractices, for taking away influence and power from those who have too much, but arbitrary killing is disgusting. Shall we applaud every broken and desperate murderer if the target they could get their hands on was bad enough by some criteria of the day? I hope this is people just trying to be edgy.
That’s not really the take of the modern philosophy of science. All modern schools of thought when it comes to science have the acceptance of falsehoods embedded into their nodels. I’ll give a few examples:
Karl Popper famously stated that science cannot prove that anything is true, only that something is false. Thus, any scientific theory that’s still accepted is regarded as not yet being proven wrong. Science is just a cycle of giving theories, proving them wrong, giving new ones to account for the problem of the old one and so on, ever getting closer to the truth, but never arriving.
Thomas Kuhn wrote about scientific paradigms, which are models of the field in question that every scientist uses (for example Aristotelian motion, which was surpassed by Newtonian mechanics, which were surpassed by Einstein’s relativity). During the period of “normal science”, scientists are using their established methods until they end up with too many problems they cannot resolve, at which point it is accepted that the paradigm cannot hold up, and a scientific revolution needs to bring forth a new paradigm, that is incomparable with the old one. Some knowledge is lost in this process, but we move on until the next crisis.
Paul Feyerabend wrote about countet-induction, which prevents science becoming a dogma. An example he gives is Copernicus going completely against the science of his time with his heliocentric system. The Ptolemaic system was as cutting edge science back then as quantum mechanics is today.
All in all, findings being continuously disproven and replaced by new ones is not bad science, it is science. Achieving actual, “true”, positive knowledge of the world, documenting it and saying “that’s it, we solved this problem, we’re done” is not something modern science event attempts at.