GRE Sample: "Scientific Fact Invariably Proves to be Inaccurate"

Going through the motions for the GRE. Here's a sample response for the prompt:

"Scientific theories, which most people consider 'fact,' almost invariably prove to be inaccurate. Thus, one should look upon any information described as 'factual' with skepticism since it may well be proven false in the future."

Almost anything, is as much something, as it is nothing. Science has proven a lot of things: that water conducts electricity; planets orbit the sun; even that the world isn't flat -- to name a few. But to hold it in casual disregard, simply because in the past, 'facts' have been inaccurate, is erroneous for a number of reasons.

When Darwin cast off on the Beagle, he did so in the name of religion; to further his religious faith and conviction. He returned a changed man, with a scientific theory -- evolution. Today evolution has seen intense debate, but what it hasn't seen is an absolute explanation for the contrary. Invariably inaccurate? Certainly not. Theologians have even taken to evolution -- seeing its validity -- and have attempted adaptation. Therein, adding veritable weight to the argument for scientific theory, even in a none-scientific field.

In none-scientific theory -- religion, if you will -- plausibility has become progressively arguable. Skepticism runs rampant, resulting in fragmentation and adaptation to what the author claims are 'invariable facts.' These adaptations are a testament to a disintegration of collective skepticism, and an hesitant embrace of objective 'fact.'

However, even in science, there are things that have no explanation. For example, when a gold fish is kept in a curved bowl, its vision becomes skewed. The physiological response is for the fish to adapt to warped reality, and what we'd embrace as skewed, becomes normal for the fish, and vice versa. Why are we right, and the fish wrong? Because objective reality is in the eye of the beholder. This branch of science -- quantum theory -- is constantly in flux, and every time one of its theories is disproved skepticism is laying in wait.

Collectively, theories are just that, theories. Things to be postulated upon, argued over, and most importantly, improved upon. Science certainly is the most progressive field of theory; because when disproof occurs, a better answer is sought, not a justification. 'Facts' will indefinitely be inaccurate as long as humans declare them; but viability stands as scientific theories stalwart defender.

I think your essay can be divided into two parts ----- "the first paragraph" and "the rest paragraphs".

The first part disagreed with the statement of the topic.

However, based on my comprehension to your points, the second part is actually supportive to the topic.

Therefore these two parts conflicts to each other.

First, we can learn from the Darwin's example that "facts" could turn out to be "false" or "inaccurate",

which implies that we should be skeptical to some "facts" because they could eventually prove to be wrong.

Secondly, the last two paragraphs are discussing about our cognizance of the definition of facts, which is also supportive to the sentence that "we should be skeptical to some "facts" because they could result in "false" due to our erroneous cognizance of facts."

My suggestion:

Carefully plan what you are going to write before you start to write. It can avoid this kind of error.

I hope my feedback helps

Impressive writing! Let me make some suggestions.

Almost anything is as much something as it is nothing.---no commas. But should it say everything instead of anything?

Try to always use a word other than thing... thing is too vague and weak.
Science has proven a lot of things hypotheses: that water conducts electricity; planets orbit the sun; even that the world isn't flat -- to name a few. But to hold it in casual disregard, simply because in the past, 'facts' have been inaccurate, is erroneous for a number of reasons.

Use the prefix "non"
even in a nonscientific field.

In nonscientific theory -- religion, if you will -- plausibility has...

The physiological response is for the fish to adapt to warped reality, and what we'd embrace as skewed, becomes normal for the fish, and vice versa.---This is a very good sentence.

Why are we right, and the fish wrong? ---Excellent, you have a great style and impressive critical thinking skill.