That being said, scientific errors abound. Generally not in the math, though. Their explanations are often quite terrible. (The Copenhagen Interpretation being a prime offender and cause of much of the “woo woo”.)

The problem is that to explain complex topics, the expert has to dumb down the explanation to the level of the audience’s knowledge and experience. That often twists things out of focus so badly that the audience often winds up learning nearly the opposite of the truth.

The truly terrible part is that once you get through the complicated math, the concepts behind most scientific topics are quite simple indeed. scientists, being primarily mathematicians, are taught the math, and often misunderstand the beauty of the reality underlying the equations.

Here is a good example of things: Geometric Algebra. It’s fantastic, it’s true, it’s representative of how the universe works, it’s relatively (hah!) simple, it’s predictive, and it’s almost completely ignored in scientific education. The behavior of both complex numbers and quaternions emerges GA. Quantum spinors emerge from GA. Maxwell’s 4 equations become a single GA equation describing the relationship between electric charge and magnetism. And all this derives from a single, simple, unifying principle.

For instance, most of astronomy is based on gravity being the prime mover, when the evidence is overwhelming that it’s electricity (www.thunderbolts.info has all the receipts).

These sorts of fundamental errors lead to subsequent errors, such as the need to create “dark matter”, which doesn’t exist… Except in the minds of those needing to preserve their false assumptions.

These errors are rife through all sciences and institutions. If parts of your foundation are broken, every part afterward based on it is also broken.

The bureaucratic-educational complex exposed. Or he needs to update his definition of “understand” to “you can outsmart 90% of journalists at the science desk”.