The concept of truth

If 97 percent of scientists agree on something, but later 97 percent of scientists agree on something different, which “fact” was not a fact? What does “fact” mean?

Saying that something is a fact because 97 percent of scientists agree is argument by authority, not science. If scientists are followers of the truth, why is there presently a dilemma in medicine of nonreproducibility of medical papers? Evidence-based science is fraudulent and chaotic when the science is nonreproducible.

What are the risks and rewards of publishing untrue information? Do people sometimes purposely publish untrue information? When one speaks of 97 percent of scientists agreeing, how does one determine that “fact”? Is it possible that the 97 percent number was determined in unusual ways to fraudulently make a point?

Neither golfers, nor scientists, nor preachers, nor doctors, nor lawyers, nor journalists, nor editors, nor people who write to newspapers are exclusively the followers of the truth. Quite frankly, people are sometimes rewarded for not telling the truth. If no one group of people are exclusively truth-seekers, then from where do we get the concept of truth, and right and wrong?

Disclosure: I studied physics at White Hall High School and went to church at a number of different denominations in Arkansas. MIKE BROWN

Redfield