Or, you know from different life experiences, values etc.

Which account for differing access to data and explanations, willingness to accept certain statements, and so on. My point stands: it's still about ignorance.

Which one is it? If you can't even avoid contradicting yourself in a single post, then your theory might not be 100% consistent.

Men, specially when they adjust to the hegemonic views of masculinity. Men can suffer from gender roles, and be punished for deviating from them, but when adhering to them will be given preferential treatment ceteris paribus.

but his belief that everyone slightly to the left or slightly to the right of him must be an enemy of the revolution and/or closet royalist.

Arguably properly paranoid. Regardless, I am not stating what "should be done to people who don't hold certain beliefs", just stating that, in matters of fact, two or more people who disagree can't both be right. And having disagreement doesn't matter there can't be strategic allegiances.

I'm going to retract and say "your view of the scientific method is a Middle School simplification".

Consider continental drift. What predictions did it make? Arguably, that we should observe continents moving slowly in certain directions. But now imagine that we had measured continents moving before anyone came up with continental drift, and indeed we came up with it thanks to extrapolation from that movement.

Under your view of the scientific method, continental drift wouldn't be scientific anymore. Regardless, it would still be undeniably true.

Well that's like, your opinion man.

Since apparently you find this similar to liking chocolate or not to you, this will be my last response.