Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
When people take scientific findings, charts, or models as total, eternal truth, they’re treating the map as the territory. Real life is always more textured and ambiguous. Good science constantly updates the map to better reflect the terrain. Bad science—or rigid thinking—tries to force the terrain to fit the map.
When media or even scientists collapse scientific findings into absolutes—“X causes Y,” “Study proves Z.” That’s when public trust erodes. If people expect certainty from science, they’ll see contradiction where there is actually evolution.
Cuidese, saludos!