Yup. There is no way to resolve it. Everything besides numbers can be used to argue against them, because all numbers (optimistically) can measure is a very precise and pedantic simplification of an carefully constructed argument.
In the case of hard sciences and engineering, it's direct sensory data that feeds the argument and maintains the rigor. Every person's eyes more or less, function the same, lest we descend into philosophizing about language, continuity of meaning and perception.
Science will eventually have to come to terms with realizing that interpretation and truth is much more variant than the ideals of science reach for. A lot of social sciences have accepted this, and even teach this. But the expectation is people should then be more intelligent, hard working, and overall have greater competency than the norm demands. Unfortunately this is what creates part of the problem - the ability to bring a pattern into actual existence, by observing it before it actually exists.
I don't like the idea of survival of the fittest in research and ideas though. I think it starts with simple questions, like 'what are we looking to prove/demonstrate/etc?', 'why/how?', which is concurrently processed with stuff like ethical and moral introspection and discussion.
But the big point of science half the time is that no one knows what they are doing. The prestige and authority surrounding academia doesn't really place as much emphasis on this as it should.
Assume that all information that exists at t = 0 shares more similarity with other information at t = 0, than information at t = other. Then all information that exists in the present observation has a uniform probability of being correct, without having to verify the correctness of the information.
Assume that information is deterministic - in that information has a limit of what it is capable of expressing given enough time.
Assume that information taken at t = 0 and information taken at t = n and t = -n shares similar degrees of complexity, transformation, simplification, mechanical operation. All information moves uniformly.
There are lots of things that already exist in culture that present themselves as fact or truth, when there really isn't any reason to have initialized yourself on agreement when you were first taught it, aside from cultural and societal pressure.
I don't like google, but what google is doing is no different than what anything else does when it creates, alters, and destroys information. The localization of the information doesn't matter, as the transformational functions applied to the information can be universal, random, and chaotic.
In simpler terms, someone at google may implement one way to think, which spreads virally across an entire population, but they may have learned that one way to think from something they learned isolated from civilization on top of a mountain. And they may change it tomorrow, because something seemingly trivial changed, like someone's tone of voice in an otherwise predictable meeting that occurs every Thursday at 2:15 pm. In retrospect, it's still ambiguous as to what has significance and what does not. Patterns are no different from chaos from an objective perspective.
In the case of hard sciences and engineering, it's direct sensory data that feeds the argument and maintains the rigor. Every person's eyes more or less, function the same, lest we descend into philosophizing about language, continuity of meaning and perception.
Science will eventually have to come to terms with realizing that interpretation and truth is much more variant than the ideals of science reach for. A lot of social sciences have accepted this, and even teach this. But the expectation is people should then be more intelligent, hard working, and overall have greater competency than the norm demands. Unfortunately this is what creates part of the problem - the ability to bring a pattern into actual existence, by observing it before it actually exists.
I don't like the idea of survival of the fittest in research and ideas though. I think it starts with simple questions, like 'what are we looking to prove/demonstrate/etc?', 'why/how?', which is concurrently processed with stuff like ethical and moral introspection and discussion.
But the big point of science half the time is that no one knows what they are doing. The prestige and authority surrounding academia doesn't really place as much emphasis on this as it should.