My point is . . . didn't you say were done just a few posts ago?I don't. Yeah, there are 'paradigm shifts' and revolutions in science. We learn about them in school. As I said that is how science is 'self-correcting'.
But it seems you are implying
(1) that the fact that paradigm shifts occur means we shouldn't put any stock in the science we have, bc it could all get thrown out tomorrow. OR
(2) that every rando that writes a book about a new diet and says 'this is a new paradigm' should be believed.
In reality, paradigms gets shifted VERY rarely. And they are usually actual incremental improvements... like Newtons' theory (gravity) of planetary orbits getting replaced with Einstein's theory (geodesics on curved space time), and the new model makes extremely similar predictions to the old one.
Kinda like the hypothesis cholesterol causes heart attacks... being replaced with a hypothesis that LDL cholesterol causes heart attacks... being replaced with 'the LDL particles tagged with an ApoB protein' cause heart attacks. All different paradigms, but each just adding detail to the previous ones. And each step occurs after dozens of peer reviewed papers over a decade of work, replicated by many labs around the world using the best scientific methods.
Versus some rando writes a book that says 'cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease' and 'its my new paradigm!' and going on Joe Rogan. And folks say 'hey, paradigm shifts happen in science, so this seems plausible'
What is your point exactly?
I can't explain my point any differently than I have. I'm sorry you can't grasp it.
It's ok to disagree and not feel compelled to pen an essay.