No it doesn't pointing out something relies on assumptions and is therefore uncertain is enough. You seem to have difficulty accepting uncertainty. This is common. The human mind always tries to fill in the blanks. I'm just pointing out the limits of our ability to know something.
Oh, how tricksters love to hide in the shadows of uncertainty.
When we measure the distance to a galaxy as 15 million light years everybody knows there is uncertainty. It could be 13 million or maybe 17 million. That uncertainty in no way impacts the validity of theories resting on its distance. You're trying to use the term in a different way to suggest that the uncertainty means we have no idea if that's even close to the "real" distance. That assertion is false.
The assertion is true, without being able to actually check our work it's impossible to know if we are right. It is uncertain in the literal sense, we don't , and cannot at this time, know for sure.
The work is checked. You are insisting on that only one specific way of checking is valid.
Yes, my point is that without going out and checking, it is impossible to know if we are right or if we are just consistently wrong. I understand you're having difficulty with the concept as your mind appears to rebel against uncertainty. There are many things we can't know for sure as we lack the ability to really check. I accept that in many cases we've managed to develop approximations that are close enough to work with, but saying you know for sure is religion, not science.
(post is archived)