Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted, since it may well be proven false in the future. Reason: Much of the information that people assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate.

Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted, since it may well be proven false in the future. Reason: Much of the information that people assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate.

Nowadays, we live in a society with ubiquitous media coverage; thus we are intentionally or unintentionally receive numerous information day in and day out. While a large portion of the information which people believe as truth turns out to be inaccurate, it will be exaggerating to accordingly assume that any piece of information should be suspicious. In my view, the claim should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Admittedly, the information in some domains is always changeable, say, science and technology. Since the essence of science is to break new ground, it would be little wonder that scientific theories are updated all the time. In the Middle Age, it was widely believed that the earth is the center of the universe, and the theory was endorsed by the Catholic Church. The mainstream model had considered an undeniable truth in medieval Europe until Nicolaus Copernicus questioned and proposed a new theory which the sun is the center of the universe. Even though Copernicus’ view was supported by later scientists and became the mainstream, it was also challenged when it comes to the 20th century as the result of a breakthrough in astronomy. From the aspect of science, the claim is relatively true because the essence of science is innovation.

However, if we consider other domains, the claim does not hold. In the field of humanities studies, such as history, the fact seldom changed; what is changed is that people’s view toward certain historical events. For instance, Napolean was deemed as a ruthless tyrant in the early 19th century for his conquests of other European countries and northern Africa. In comparison with the image of Napoleon in the 19th century, modern historians admire his talented military skill and achievement in the promotion of the idea of democracy. Nowadays, people seldom view him as a warmonger but a tragic hero; what has changed is not Napoleon or the deems he did but the view of people. From this point of view, the statement can hardly be considered as justifiable.

Moreover, though we are now living in an ever-changing world, something is always universal and able to transcend time. It is the nature of human beings, no matter how advanced science has been developed or how many years have passed, human nature is always the same. If we consider the fact about humanity is a sort of information, the reference is most likely trustable and unchangeable, since that information derives from certain aspects of human nature—such as aggression and greed, kindness, and hospitality. Therefore, from this aspect, the claim can be questionable.

In conclusion, I approve that much of information in some fields like science is more likely to prove to be inaccurate over time; some information is certain but the views towards it vary as society develops, and some information is universal regardless of time, such as the information about human nature.