to not be too political but as can be seen in a modern day of the massive spread of misinformation, there is a fine line between productive and genuine hearsay that fringes on the edge of paradigm shift discovery.

A great example to elude to the society you are trying to get out would be to look at the scientific community. While the outputs of all science has indeed made quality of life exponentially better and there is less widespread suffering due to natural events i.e. hunger, disease, etc... there is a certain golden standard most educated individuals hold to their ideas that work in confined black boxes.

Take for example electronics. It is a mutual notion that if certain physical formulas were discovered to be inaccurate, the devices that implement the formulas would fail. As if writing down on a piece of paper a new workable formalization will somehow send a pulse to my device that makes it stop working. Maybe it is the discovery of some fault that has an indiscernible fault. It would make sense then, that the probability to experience the fault would be nil for a long time and after n time cases would start to become more widespread. Let’s say after 50 failures the failure probability increases rapidly on a global scale. One can imagine the discovery of the fault would be close in time to the discovery of the formula which describes the fault. There would have been no clear clue or idealization of the fault unless an experimental condition had occurred. Perhaps this idea is what professors in physics talk about when they say if physics is wrong our devices would stop working.

Okay so I digress, all in all it seems the mindset to hold ones opinions of scientific matters as law is extreme. Often, people are too scared of being proven wrong? A conducive society would be one that doesn’t even attempt to make more physics off the ‘observation’ of black holes because the scientists would know how intense of a calculation it is and would considered a probability that they are way off the mark. Look at a puddle in the concrete during a rainy night. Do you see the street lights and cars reflect in the puddle? You have zero clue what the objects are, especially if you have never experienced or saw one of those objects. Let’s say in another case you have seen a car and a street light, in the puddle aren’t they just two blobs you cannot distinguish from one another, besides maybe their color? These blobs tell you absolutely nothing about Jill who is running late picking up her kid from soccer practice and runs the red light or the other blob, and crashes into another blob(this third blob probably couldn’t be seen at this point due to incoming from a different axis) which then causes jills kid to grow up without a mother and have sever traumatic psychology to overcome. Sure I can calculate some speeds at which the light blobs are moving but I have no clue that light has a whole different experience in Jills life. Light allows plants to grow which then gives Jill the substance to be alive. The blobs of light do not tell me how heavy the car is maybe only some idea because I have seen a car and can maybe make a comparison due to the size of the blob. There are millions of things going on that the extrapolated blob would never be able to tell me, especially again, the car that hit Jill that was not even picked up. All of a sudden jills blob doesn’t exist anymore, and if we only monitored the puddle there would be no shot in accurately identifying what the fuck happened to Jill.

So why do I compare this to black holes and say scientist shouldn’t spend all this time developing black hole theory? I only say it from the limited resource earth we live on. Unfortunately people play a game of economics of time, and we don’t just have unlimited resources to throw at every idea. If we did I would say there are benefits in developing the technology to view black holes. As if to say the technology is A) developed specifically view black holes and B) have zero other application. It is in fact clear a and b are false, but for arguments sake they are kind of irrelevant as the technologies developed could have been found elsewhere, and maybe on a quicker path or, the path could’ve ended shortly after and transformed into a different line of research. The mass amount of assumptions needed to be made to view black holes is ridiculous. Look at the trillions of celestial bodies that stand in the way of the light to come to earth for scientists to say the hole in light coming from this area of the universe is clear as day to be from a black hole, alibit more complicated since some other technologies like gravitational waves are used as well. What about a space age civilization that can terraform space itself? Why is a black hole more likely? Also our measurements of black holes and light not escaping the epoch fail to mention ideas like what does Greg black hole eat to be alive, and how is what Greg is fed made, what about the mindset Greg has before he crashes into black hole bob?

Too many assumptions are made by all parties involved and until one day humans can figure out a platform to do skeptical work without paralyzing development, these assumptions will be widespread and the society you describe will be impossible to envision.

Like I said a million times, there’s a lot of complexity to the argument I just described where some assumptions about process are ignored. The equivocation to black holes could have been supplanted by another widespread area of research which could have made my argument stronger, alas whenever I ponder doing science in a box black holes are their infinitude of complexity comes to mind.