I would say that at any given time this is the case. To the best of some people’s ability - scientists, whoever - it is being demonstrated, with whatever success this leads to. I am not sure we ‘need a context in which…’ etc. We might need it for some specific (unnamed here) goal. Though determining that we need that seems to me as problematic as anything thing else. Some people want that.
Though in the latter case there is still internecine disagreement about all sorts of stuff, as you and the thread point out. And utterly fundamental stuff. As far as the former, sure. Most people can see that we have learned to make stuff using scientific research and engineering. What this means about all sorts of is issues is unclear.
Ah, we agree. yes, we don’t know what these feats mean about metaphysics, the nature of reality, what can’t be true, much of what is true and so on.
Then this part…
Yup.
Though popularity may not mean anything. If we look to the past even consensus about somethings did not lead to it continuing to be consensus.
They certainly can’t be now and I doubt they ever will be. If one agrees with that, then the question becomes, potentially, what do I do given that I don’t think this will ever happen?
If one disagrees, what does one base this optimistic evaluation on.
But if one is trying to move things towards greater consensus, if that is your goal, what steps lead to that.
In this thread it seems like the point you make could be summed up as ‘look at all the stuff we don’t understand’.
Now that could be a good approach. Let’s face our situation and this situation includes us not knowing a lot of fundamental stuff.
Is this the best approach? I don’t know.
What other steps would be useful? Based on what knowledge does one decide?
What interpersonal skills are needed?
Who should one build consensus with first?
Or one might decide the goal is unreachable or that one is not the right person or that given all the problems some other activity might be more enjoyable or more important (to one).