[smif]

Yes it's a bold claim philosophically. How would you justify it?

No, flat earth "theory", if you can call it that, has close to zero supporting evidence and AFAIK has no actual predictive power. Stick with consensus science if you want actually useful theories, but that is very different from claiming they are giving you objective truth.

Let me ask you this, when a theory that was previously accepted as consensus science loses support in light of new evidence and gets supplanted by a new and better theory, does that mean that the objective truth changed?

[catiopatio]

It’s frustrating when nearly every discussion of hard math in an open forum devolves (in part or whole) into endless, pointless, off-topic epistemological navel gazing.

[hnfong]

What? The objectivity of math is literally what the original article discusses. Why are you even in here if you're not willing to discuss it?