# Common Narrative with ID on MN

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/common-narrative-with-id-on-mn/7649>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Design\
**Created:** [September 2, 2019, 5:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/common-narrative-with-id-on-mn/7649 "2019-09-02T17:02:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 32

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cwhenderson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/cwhenderson/32/72_2.png) [@cwhenderson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/cwhenderson)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 3:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/common-narrative-with-id-on-mn/7649/32 "2019-09-03T15:43:24Z")

</div>

> [@pnelson](#):
>
> For now and the foreseeable future, mainstream science _claims to work_ by MN, whether we like it or not.

As one of the “or nots” how would you “like” to see science change? Would you rather that untestable hypotheses predominate our understanding of the natural world, thus limiting how we study it? I like to think that scientists moved past this quite some time ago with good reason.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/common-narrative-with-id-on-mn/7649)._