Counter-point:

There are also many widely accepted beliefs in the scientific community that are based on misinterpreted data/results published by others, unconfirmed, and out-dated beliefs. I agree with you, but I also think we too quickly dismiss those who question the paradigm and many in translational/translated fields (like medicine) continue operating on out-dated beliefs because they don't want to or don't have the time to keep up with current research.

Case in point: the justification for 6-foot spacing at the beginning of the COVID pandemic. Particles do not magically drop off after a few feet, this was justified in medical textbooks based on a misinterpretation of a particle physicist's publication. Another example: many organic chemistry classes still teach that FTIR is a qualitative method only despite many examples of FTIR quantitation and the widespread adoption of this method throughout companies that produce instruments and analysis software.

We should encourage trying to disprove that which we think is true and unquestionable so that we can fix our past mistakes and better inform our future work.

How about this one: 'Useless doesn't mean valueless'

Thoughts?

Awesome! Two questions: 1. Could you pitch some of your material as having a possible future application of radically increasing packing efficiency for airline bound luggage? And, 2. What's your favorite kind of nuclear pasta?

I misread that as prefix and, honestly, forthwhence doesn't sound half bad.

that’s an extremely rare sighting but it’s so satisfying to read

I thankfully don't have to deal with RFPs anymore, but when I did, I'd either go line-by-line or ignore the prospect's text entirely. There is an in-between, but it's wishy-washy crowd-pleasing nonsense, and even the people entrenched in those bureaucracies see straight through it.

I work in IT, and by now, every single 3-letter-abbreviation makes my eyelid twitch.

Well, actually you're kind of wrong, at least in some contexts.

So I'm not sure, how that works in other countries, but here in Germany, a large bid for some public contact has to parrot the requirements. The process includes a bloke essentially ticking all of the boxes in their request, and if you say (just for example) "we will deploy that in our k8s cluster" but they require a cloud ready solution, the bloke will not tick the box. Yes, that's incredibly stupid.

Apart from that, who reads the bid texts? Not technical people, but bean counters and MBAs. The technical people on the other side are only asked for comment, they have no say.

I wish you would be right, but in a world full of people desperately trying to justify their existence, fluff is essential.

Your writing could use a little polishing.