Why don’t you learn a little about science before belittling its contributions to human knowledge? Science is not a thing which can be proven wrong. Science is a process which advances our knowledge of physical reality through a process designed to minimize subjective human bias. As a the product of a process rather than a body of beliefs, scientific knowledge is constantly evolving and being refined as new technology is developed and new discoveries are made. Science has not been “proven wrong constantly since belief first came into existence” because you cannot disprove a process. Old knowledge is refined and replaced by new knowledge. Those old beliefs about the nature of reality were, at the time, the best that human scientific inquiry could provide. But technology changes, opening new avenues of investigation, and new ideas are conceived to test the old ones. Science is not invalid because it changes and grows in refinement and its ability to describe and model the natural world. That is precisely its strength. Unlike the dogma of religion which previously in western culture (and currently in other cultures) claimed the role of disseminator of the truth of reality, science is not fixed. It does not claim that the world is 6000 years old despite an undisputed body of evidence to the contrary simply because that’s what has always been believed. Stubbornness of belief should not be equated with correctness of belief. It is evidence of intelligence and a critical mind that new information is incorporated into old beliefs or, if justified, allowed to replace them entirely.

As for your position on the nature of “proof”: under the strictest definition of proof, nothing can be proven. But if for the history of human experience, apples fall toward the ground rather than toward the sky, it’s a fairly safe bet (I’d give it odds of about 1:10^20) that if you sit beneath an apple tree in the summertime and watch the apples fall, they’ll fall toward the ground. Does that prove that apples will always fall toward the ground? To most people, yes. But you could argue, and obviously have, that all that proves is that apples in the past have fallen to the ground. There could be a radical spontaneous reversal of gravity in the next second, caused by an unforeseen physical interaction, that causes the next apple that falls from a tree to fall toward the sky. It could. But it’s not likely. Really not likely.

Your argument is simply not a valid commentary on science. You propose to replace a well-researched, well-studied scientific phenomenon with a vast conspiracy theory. Do you have proof of a conspiracy? Because I could take you to a scientific laboratory and show you those experiments being performed. "But what if they really drugged you and put you in the most super-realistic, alien-technology-inspired VR Holodeck ever and it’s all just an illusion! See, then it’s still a conspiracy, just a bigger one!" But what if, what if. You can always come up with a more complicated, more unlikely hypothesis for a given phenomenon, but that does not in any way weaken the accepted scientific explanation unless you can present more compelling evidence of your position than can a global community of research scientists.

Now, I could pull out Occam’s Razor as a justification for the scientific explanation, but I find it hard to believe that you actually subscribe to such a ridiculous proposition, so I’m just going to leave this as it is.

Also, who exactly was your intended audience with that post? Who is this “you” who “automatically deny the existence of anything that does not fit into the "reality" that you have been taught to perceive, and yet you blindly accept anything that fits into this "reality" you have been taught to perceive”? To direct such unsupported, blanket stereotypes at an entire forum is not only rude, but it weakens your argument. What is the validity of your argument if it is directed at nothing but a spurious psychological construct devised as an easy target?