Humans are a tiny speck in this vast universe. We have always been curious and we have this intuitive evolutionary thirst to answer every question. This species having a more developed brain began to consider questioning what we see and feel as an important component to progress apart from food and mating.
One approach is to observe and make a hypothesis based on the boundations of known math and imagination. A person in the metal age observing sparks coming from a hammer striking on a metal piece could immediately draw an analogy to the lightning strikes lighting up the sky. The hypothesis was simple and straight forward. There is a large hammer up there creating these sparks. That should be so logical. Now, let’s draw some conclusion from this hypothesis which is very likely correct. There must be some superhuman being who can handle such a big hammer. A super powered god who can create lightning upon his will with his super powered hammer. We don’t know his name but let’s call him Thor.
Let’s say people like this theory and they accept it because it is supposedly relatable, logical and satisfies the hunger for curiosity. It is clear and convenient idea. Now, for science to progress (yes, it was science back then), let’s not have people who would interfere and try to manipulate or disorder the axioms and hypothesis our understanding of world is built on. Let’s burn the people who question our axioms or try to prove us wrong. People who claim it to be electrical discharge between two clouds or people who claim it’s a giant cat’s hair rubbing against the earth. We don’t need negativity and suppression on the path to understanding the universe. Let’s call it option A.
People like this theory and they accept it. However, they are open to questioning and challenging their own model to test its credibility and reliability because questioning is what led them to establish their set of axioms. The process of questioning which always lets open a door to truth, which would make them realize their mistakes is what will take them ahead and is ultimately what will help them progress. It may slow down the progress of an existing set of ideas but it will never, on a large scale of time, be something which slowed them down. It is more like increasing the clarity and moving on a better direction at a slower pace than just going ahead without a realization of what you are and how terribly wrong your approach regarding understanding the universe could be. So, we stop and acknowledge both individuals who claim that lightning is because of clouds or cats and we go with the more logical option. The option which answers further questions efficiently. Let’s call this option B.
Now why science? Because science is option B. The process that we follow to establish the foundation of science, we are ready to question it as well. Just the fact that you can question science and there will be an answer makes science credible. And if there is not an answer to the question, it’s even better, that’s when you change those pillars. That’s when you redefine science. That’s when you discover something new. A hidden face of this universe unveiling in front of you. Now, if someone says that times slows down in a moving frame, you cannot choose to refuse it. It’s not an opinion. It’s just how the world works. Doesn’t mean that you cannot question it. You can always question the reliability of the conclusions drawn from an experiment or how a hypothesis is unstable or stable. You always have the liberty to choose, to do, to manipulate, to find a better solution and whatever logically is right will be accepted.
Towards a more philosophical aspect. If someone says the Earth is flat or vaccines are not good or cancer is a propaganda, we have two options. A or B? We can refuse them, refuse to acknowledge and ignore them. We can progress with what we believe is right. Follow the methodical system we follow to establish science which we personally chose as a right option. Or we can wait and consider conflicting contradicting opinions. Slow down science for a second and ensure are we on the right track? If no, go back and fix where we went wrong. If yes, provide a reasoning to why the system is still consistent and go ahead at the original pace we are meant to go.
If we believe in science, it would be self-contradictory to not acknowledge the fact that science has to progress such that we prioritize clarity over speed.