Turn your light on in your room. The light is now on. This is a truth. Now, exit your room and close the door. Is the light still on? Well, you would have to conclude that it is. You made sure it was turned on when you left. You have only been standing outside of the door for a few seconds. And oh look, You can even see light coming from underneath the door. So yes, the light is still on.

Leave your house. Is the light still on? You didn’t turn it off when you left, no one else was home, you locked your door, the power is still on, the lightbulb did not burn out – is the light on? Yes, it is. This is a truth, just as much as the truth of seeing it with your own eyes.

But you can’t be certain of this. It is a truth, the light has to be on. There is no possible explanation you can flirt with that even remotely discredit your theory. The light is on, game set and match. But you’re still not certain. You may even say you have ‘faith’ that the light is on because you can not prove it from your current location. But your ‘light faith’ is not just total lunicy – you have a solid foundation of evidence to back up your claim. You turned it on yourself, you were the only one in the house, you made sure it was on before you left, you locked your door, no one else entered. But until you walk back into that room and see it with your own eyes, you’re not certain.

Now, based on this, how can we expect absolute certainity with anything?

Let’s search for flaws in our light theory. There is a group with claims saying the light isn’t really in fact on that is gaining popularity. Their claim is simple – there was a man dressed in a invisible pants and when you left the house, he turned the light off. Now, that is possible and it should be taken as a serious criticism… if invisible pants existed. There was no reason for the theory of the light on to raise a possible misconception of someone in the room sporting invisible Calvin Kleins – because they don’t exist in reality. In theory, it is a possible flaw, but in reality, it’s not. Dismissed.

The possibilties are endless and don’t even have to combat reality. Other groups continue to raise flaws in your theory. They point to the “missing gaps” and focus on what you can’t prove. Maybe someone changed out the lightbulb before Bob ran the experiment with one that has a timer and automaticaly turns off in 5 mintues. Sure, this is possible. But why should we give this any merit? Did anyone know about Bob’s test? Why would someone want to sabotage it? Sure, since it aligns with reality, we can verify and check the light bulb. This will prove that it was still the same lightbulb. But why do this? Once this theory was falisified, another one could arise as well. And another, and another. There is not time to test every possible situation. The damn light is just on!

How many of these claims against our theory should be taken seriously? We don’t have enough time and resources to combat every bogus claim that our light is off.

Now apply this to our collective knowledge. Many people say science is flawed because we can’t know anything with absolute certainty. And they’re true, we can’t, but the god damned light is on! Is it not? Is it crazy to say you’re certain that the light is on? Of course not, and it’s the same with other fields of knowledge that we have studied, experimented, and learned. To discredit science based on the idea that we never really know anything is absolute nonsense.

Science is a method to study our reality. We guess, test, repeat, and conclude. That’s what it boils down to. We learn from our tests and apply what we learn to future tests. We used it to invent electricity, and now electricity is a foundation for modern technology. We don’t have to keep figuring out electricity, it’s just there. That is the power of science.

It’s ghastly brainless to discredit everything science has done for us because it can’t be absolutely certain. The bottom line is science works, and no other system even compares. Nothing is infallible; no book, no rule, no law, no idea, and no ideology. To degrade something by these means is foolish. And it’s even more foolish to turn around and claim something is absolute. Because no, it’s not.