Aka

• Math: Here's a dozen assumptions and how they interact
• Physics: Here's math models we can apply to several observable groups of things.
• Chemistry: Here's math models we can usually assume work for a lot of things, but there are so many assumptions they only actually work in very well observed conditions.
• Biology: The creatures you are studying are weaponizing your observations against you

Physics: Every macro state of reality is a collapsed position of micro states that change because you saw them

Statistics is the bottom text and first picture

Math: here's a theorem, if it's proven, it's true until someone finds an error in the proof or in the computer program or its compiler, if it's a computer assisted proof and the compiler can never be proven not to be flawed (Turing). Or until someone finds an error in one of the assumptions or in their proofs. Or until the axiomatic system used is proven inconsistent and it can never be proven not to be inconsistent (Goedel). Or until you decide you need to work in a different system. Or technically if we stay in the system, but language or culture shifts and we change what we mean by the specific words and symbols used in the theorem.

Even if it's true, unless you're a platonist, it's not true in the sense that it corresponds to a factual state of affairs in the world (there are no triangles). It's only true within the system you're using, just like the sentence: "Sherlock Holmes lives in Baker Street" is only true in the fictional world of the novels by Arthur Conan Doyle. But in a more redundant way, because unlike novels, math statements are tautologies, reducible to a small number of axioms or axiom schemes, while novels don't follow necessarily from, say, the table of contents.

All models are wrong, but some are useful

Biological physicists in shambles.

Bloodywood well regard that guy in Gaddaar.

Three months after broadcasting that song, WWE bought the UFC.

Co-Cain is the most hilarious joke ever planted around.