Truth can only evolve; it cannot be dictated. Science truth evolves well, since it is highly evaluated, basic reality.

So there is a lot of science which is considered to be fact, though any of it can be questioned—that is, with rational explanations.

This means peer review is total garbage. Three scientists cannot determine what truth is for everyone else. Originally, review did not have that purpose. It was simply an assist for editors. But over time, corrupters in science slid the concept of review into a mechanism for mongering power by licensing science to themselves, while their cohorts in the nonscientific public used it as a lever for sanctifying their stupidity and attacking opponents.

Another result of 500 years of science evolution is the highly developed nature of the information. It links to surrounding realities in complex ways. Science becomes increasingly complex and certain over time, as the same subjects are studied in new ways. Each method of measurement yields more complex information on old subjects.

One of the things this means is that there isn't a version of science that looks right but is in error. Errors in science must be highly inconspicuous. Physics is almost entirely in error, and that state is only possible due to the darkness that complex math creates.

Actually, the same is true everywhere, but it is not as provable in other places than science. People should be more skeptical of obfuscation replacing clear explanations. Obfuscators are always wrong; clear explanations are always right, or at least they get corrected awful fast.

The concept of a photon is an extreme error in physics, but it doesn't look right, and physicists admit that it contradicts the wave version of radiation. They use the photon theory for exploitive purposes, but it doesn't look right to anyone in science to say light is made of packets.

Nonscientists assume that critics have to be wrong when authorities say something different, even if the criticism looks right. They allow obfuscation to overrule criticism, which promotes corruption.

To nonscientists, over-simplification can make errors look right. Nonscientists tend not to grasp how treacherous lack of knowledge or information can be in science and that over-simplification is not a clear explanation.

An example is the assumption that any erratic weather effect is caused by greenhouse gases which humans put in the air. Why did ice melt in the Alps 5,300 years ago, then cover the "iceman," then melt again in 1991 to uncover the iceman? It's because climate is extremely dynamic, random and unpredictable. It seems strange that so many nonscientists do not understand how erratic and extreme normal weather and climate are.

Science is so basic and complex that no two versions of anything similar can be produced where the evidence is significantly developed. The corruptions of science all depend upon obfuscation. If it were otherwise, science would have been a total failure over the past 500 years in establishing what objective reality is instead of being the foundation of progress that it is.