The difference between science and this random shower thought you decided to grace this thread with is that science has some sound epistemological basis, typically evidence, whereas you have nothing.

> The difference between science and this random shower thought you decided to grace this thread with is that science has some sound epistemological basis

Science can have sound epistemological basis, but many times overspecialization can force confidence in areas where there is none and its echo-chambered by people in the field to keep the sense of authority on a subject going.

A weird claim when science is littered with a history of poor, insane explanations for phenomena.

People play back the “Greatest Hits” without really going into the historical misses. The reality is that the quality and predictive power of science is covariate with culture.

There are a lot of good reasons to think that academic culture right now has a groupthink problem, mostly because the group is so much larger. Alternative theories typically have to wait for an incumbent group of thinkers to die. But if the gradient of thought is more continuous then do bad ideas become more sticky?

>that science has some sound epistemological basis

"Epistemological basis" the "intellectual" chortled moments before unironically claiming men can become pregnant and math is racist.