[toolz]

There's no such thing as "settled science". You can not prove that any scientific consensus has no flaws in the same way you can't prove the absence of bugs in any software. It's unproductive to treat science as anything more than an ongoing, constantly improving process.

[bccdee]

Yes there is. Germ theory is settled science. Is it theoretically possible that we'll overturn it? Sure. Is it likely? No. In the absence of any groundbreaking experimental results, it worth wasting time entertaining germ theory skepticism? Also no.

> It's unproductive to treat science as anything more than an ongoing, constantly improving process.

It's unproductive to constantly re-litigate questions like "is germ theory true" or "is global warming real" in the absence of any experimental results that seriously challenge those theories. Instead, we should put our effort into advancing medicine and fixing climate change, predicated on the settled science which makes both those fields possible.

[toolz]

> Germ theory is settled science. Is it theoretically possible that we'll overturn it? Sure.

You need to understand that every single theory will be improved upon in the future. That means they will change and it's impossible to predict if these improvements will have consequences in different contexts where people incorrectly claim the science is settled.

> It's unproductive to constantly re-litigate questions like "is germ theory true" or "is global warming real"

Can you think of any cases where the science had nearly full consensus and it was useful to re-litigate? Galileo isn't the only example. I can think of many.

[Matthyze]

Spot on. Reminds me of that old approach by evangelicals to frame scientific consensus as 'just a theory.'

[srid]

We understand very little about human microbiota (therapies like fecal microbiota transplant, however, are promising) yet germ theory is "settled science"? Interesting.