Quote (ROM @ Jan 12 2022 07:30am)

This.



No discussion needed.

Quote (Subwoofer @ Jan 12 2022 09:11am)

Oh god you don't think engineering is science.......I see the problem here.

Now let's get on to how small picture brains like you confuse yourself when trying to think out of your league. Not an insult just how ignorance works.

Wanna know what the biggest proof of internal combustion engines being one of our largest failures? Climate change.

You can't think past whats directly in front of your face enough to see what's actually going on. This mindset is toxic and defensive and offers ZERO USEFUL RESULTS for everyone.

Quote (Shadowoffury @ Jan 12 2022 11:07am)

Lol ok. So you think vaccine research is done? We're at the end, we know everything and our understanding of vaccines is complete? Better tell the thousands of scientists currently employed full-time in that field :rolleyes: I already gave you an example of how our understanding of vaccination is currently changing, and only now after decades of research.

We'll be researching vaccines for centuries to come, we're nowhere near done. That's not a bad thing, it's just how science works. Science is the search for deeper understanding, it's not an expression of truth.



Of course engineering is science. Trusting a production company is not the same thing as trusting science though, again, obviously. A company can be aware of the best science on a subject and still produce an inferior product for a number of reasons including time constraints, financial concerns, trouble securing resources, human error, etc.

If you jump out of a plane without checking your chute, you aren't trusting the science of drag, you're trusting the people who made and packed your parachute. Drag has been proven to you beyond any reasonable doubt, you don't have to trust it. No faith required.

Climate change as a result of internal combustion engines does not mean the science isn't sound. We know about climate change due to scientific research, not because some scientist said it existed and we trusted him. It's been proven. That's just one more way in which the science IS sound.

Again lol if you want to talk about vaccines lmk, it seems like you're intent on avoiding the subject tho

"One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.) Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else. This independence of science, its occasional unwillingness to accept conventional wisdom, makes it dangerous to doctrines less self critical, or with pretensions of certitude." -Carl Sagan

Quote (ROM @ Jan 11 2022 04:37pm)

I mean you already have science telling people to get the vaccine in the wake of Omicron. So, if you are looking for articles (in either direction) to draw your own conclusions then you are already doing it wrong.
Trust the science or don't. But don't kid yourself into thinking you have an idea what your are talking about because you Google'd an article.

Quote (crunkinator @ Jan 12 2022 11:36am)

I trust the science but the scientific process has been dramatically expedited because you have a government and population pushing for resolve, process mistakes can be made. To be clear I'm vaccinated and boosted, just disappointed in the results, there's hundreds of thousands weekly fully vaccinated and boosted contracting COVID at equal rates to those who are not and yes, i realize the majority of the population is vaccinated/boosted which can lead to first glance inaccuracies. I'm on the science train, always have been and will be. My issue is science is result driven and the results are poor in concerns to this variant which has me wondering if there's an explanation and if that explanation is variant specific.

EDIT: And the purpose of this isn't to know what I'm talking about, it's for my personal understanding.

Quote (Subwoofer @ Jan 12 2022 12:35pm)

So you have no faith in scientific method at all? Because this isn't something you can pick and choose.

https://ncse.ngo/definitions-fact-theory-and-law-scientific-work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

No field gets to make up rules as it goes. It's all subject to peer review and public scrutiny. No one tries or needs to hide science because it speaks for itself.

Quote (Shadowoffury @ Jan 12 2022 12:43pm)

I have total faith in the scientific method. The findings of science, however, are not the scientific method. There is a concept in science called deterioration of facts, or the half-life of facts. What this means is that what we believe with all our hearts to be true right now is not true, it has an expiration date. This is one of many reasons that trust is inconsistent with the scientific method.

The links you provided say exactly what I've been saying this whole time...

Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists who ever lived, often said that he thought the ONLY scientific theory that would stand the test of time was Maxwell's electrodynamics. He included in this even his own theories.

The purpose of science is to get ever closer to the truth. Certitude is not conducive to this aim.

Quote (Subwoofer @ Jan 12 2022 02:03pm)

So...scientific findings don't come from the application of scientific method......oh wait they do so they are absolutely linked in credibility. The same method that can prove things correct is the same method to prove them incorrect. SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Why are you trying to act like it's a faith based structure? It's logic based. No logic requires leaps just understanding.

All science is limited in the current knowledge, techniques, data at hand. You want to use the fact we can't create suns even though we know what they are as a way to disprove science? Would be absurd right?

There is a reason science has few laws and it's because the expectation is that the universe is so complex you are going to need multiple scientist, methods, technologies to keep testing it as time goes on to see how valid it remains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law You need to learn the terms correctly because you keep attributing faith like meaning to them when there is zero faith involves because you can test it for you damn self.

Quote (Shadowoffury @ Jan 12 2022 01:24pm)

I'm not acting like it's a "faith based structure" :rolleyes: I've repeatedly said that faith and trust are INCONSISTENT with the scientific method. The scientific method completely rejects trust.
YOU are the one who said we need to trust science.

I'm not trying to disprove science, I love science. It is our greatest tool. The fact that science does not rely on trust is not a flaw, it is precisely what makes it so great.

Science has many laws, btw. A scientific law is, again, not an ultimate truth. If you actually read any of the links you've posted you'll see this.