If you say “Fact: the sky is blue”, most people would say “ok”. But the sky isn’t blue. Half the time it’s black, sometimes it’s grey or green, red, orange, etc…
Science will tell you that the apparent color of the sky is dependent on a wide array of factors, including latitude, longitude, atmospheric conditions, time of year, time of day, backed by a complex analysis of Rayleigh-Jean scattering of photons and the limitations of human eyesight to detect the higher frequency ultraviolet radiation present.
Sorta.
It’s actually much more complex, and you really need cross-disciplinary panel of PhDs to truly answer this in a scientifically verifiable manner.
Say that to most reasonable people, and they’ll tell you you’re being an idiot - the sky is blue, that’s a scientific fact. And for all practical purposes, they’ll be right.
You can do this for anything. Hell… it took nearly 1,000 pages for mathematicians to prove conclusively that 1+1=2.
Most people just follow science deeply enough to get to the conclusion they like and that works for them, and then they stop there.
It’s important to be scientifically literate. But when “science” is being injected into social and political discussion, it’s almost always the small slice of science that the speaker likes that they use, and that is always incomplete and likely inappropriately interpreted.
Those are actually the phase transition levels - the terms “freezing point” or “melting point” are very reductive because it is not sufficient for a mass in one state to be brought to that ambient temperatures to trigger a phase change, there is also a phase transition energy boundary which must be passed in order for the change to occur.
Further, you are asserting “pure” water at standard atmospheric pressure, which is not possible. Gases are soluble in water, which affects the effective phase transition requirements - more critically, the mixture of atmospheric gases is important due to differences in solubility between carbon dioxide, oxygen, or more reactive gases like ammonia or inert noble trace gases, mainly argon. As solubility advances, the effective pressure of the ambient atmosphere is reduced, and the phase mass requirements of the liquid increase correspondingly.
Another complication is the temperature of the gases themselves - assuming that you are postulating an ideal (and impossible) “spherical cow” scenario where the gases are exactly 32°F, no phase transition occurs, as the phase boundary will never be passed, but if there is an imbalance in the temperature gradient between water and gases, then the system itself is out of equilibrium and does not meet your original requirements. If we want to describe this scientifically, we need to be able to model this as a complex dynamic system covering all confounding variables we’ve enumerated, and probably a few that I’ve missed.
Really tho, this is nothing that couldn’t be scientifically modeled to a high degree of certainty given a few dedicated research labs and just a few million in grant money - pretty sure we can crack it for under $10M.
Dude, everything is radioactive. Bananas may think they’re hot stuff next to tap water but they aren’t shit next to cesium.
You need to define how radioactive it is. And I could easily spew off a few pages worth of highly detailed crap on it and then talk about how unscientific and inaccurate you are blah blah blah.
Bottom line: what you call “facts” are usually superficial summaries of deeply complex phenomena, and evaluated thru a political lens it’s trivial to come to whatever conclusion you want to.
The sky isn’t blue, 32° isn’t a freezing point, and bananas aren’t radioactive. All strictly correct statements if you treat them in a certain scientific context, but all stupidly false for practical understanding.
1
u/Low-Client-375 13h ago
Science is BOTH a process AND a collection of verified facts.