There's a key problem with scientific methods in general. I've been trying to figure out for some time and I think I've got a clue so we generally profess ostensibly that we practice paparian science with a hypothesis and falsification. But in fact, what we do so much in practice is confirmation bias. We say oh here's my preferred theory or my preferred alternative and I'm going to conduct an experiment to try to prove that by disproving some opposite. Maybe even a straw man. And this is a problem I have when trying to trying to falsify conventional sciences. I keep running up against this idea that puts an additional weight of evidence on a new theory while giving an incumbent some unwarranted pedestal and I figured out that what's going on here is actually that the scientific establishment conventional wisdom is mixing and matching between the paparian ideal + Francis Bacon's inductive science and his belief in the accumulation of data, which is essentially an attractor State and it's okay to pick one or the other, but it's not okay to freely mix and match the two and that's exactly what's happening in modern science where it picks its favorites. And yeah, at some point conducts experiments. Yes, at some point you know Einstein's special relativity was proven out by by what was proposed as gravitational Lansing. It didn't falsify anything, it just confirmed. So in a way and let's note, let's not even get started with dark matter. Experiment after experiment repeatedly fails to find dark matter and yet if I do a search or I ask AI about dark matter, it will cite all of this evidence that dark matter exists, none of which has been empirically verified and yet it becomes its own attract to stay I.E it switches over it to this baconian ideal that it never subscribed to in the first place, except when it was convenient to further its own its own ends or own theories