Conclusions are the result of hypotheses.  Lots of conclusions about an array of hypotheses are required to build up a body of evidence to have good theory.


Most folks want the complex world distilled down into one liners, then argue the one liners are too simple, which is true. Because it takes work to understand the complexity.  Background, education, interest, being aware of current developments.

One liner - COvID spreads primarily by aerial droplets, masks help.  Concluded.  True.  Everyone can poke a hole in it, masks don’t get washed, people use them wrong, whatever.  Because a one-liner doesn’t capture the complexity of the world.  And yet it is a good scientific advice.  The folks who don’t want to admit this are generally willful holdouts who simply don’t want to try to understand, they are upset and afraid that wearing a mask to buy groceries will make their neighbor think they are a hippie wuss, and they are upset about draconian and stupid political knee jerk reactions and somehow think that wearing a mask will lead others to think they are afraid or supportive of those dumb political reactions, instead of doing a common sense thing for themselves and others for the 10 minutes they are inside a store.

One liner -  Human-caused fossil fuel CO2 emissions raise global temps due to greenhouse gas effect.  Concluded.  True. The Everyman can poke a few holes in it, to what extent does CO2 contribute vs solar cycles, how inherently stable is the climate, etc (there are some good answers, I’m not conversant).  The one liner doesn’t capture the complexity of the world.  And yet it is good scientific advice.  The folks who don’t want to admit this are generally also willful holdouts who don’t want to understand, or are upset by certain policy responses proposed to address the issue, or are upset by hysterical commentary and projections regarding this.  And yet the core truth is there, supported overwhelmingly.



Conclusions aren’t the issue.  Critical thinking is the issue.