(11-10-2021, 02:12 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Personally I think science denial is the biggest problem.
In the interest of time, let's take one point at a time. I'm going to start with my own view on this since you identify it as the biggest problem.
Quote:http://www.luminousgroup.net/2013/05/on-...ience.html
the word science, It comes from the Latin scientia, from sciens, which means having knowledge, from the present participle of scire, meaning to know,
What you're calling science denial is really challenging a particular methodology or reports based on it in the interest of validating knowledge, which is the root meaning from which we derive the word and idea behind science. If you follow a certain path to validating, authenticating the accuracy of your knowledge and others do not agree with the conclusions and you and others agree to then you call that science denial.
In plain language, science is about the pursuit of knowledge and reaching some degree of accuracy in knowing something, authenticating and validating what we think we know. Here is where I think you and really millions of this generation have erred.
The 'Scientific Method' a methodology which has undergone some refinement and evolution itself over the years, is not the be all end all one-size-fits-all process that can accurately validate every area of knowledge, all by itself. Its applies much better to some inquiries than it does to others. Sometimes the data is simply insufficient for example. It may be incomplete or unavailable at the present, or aspects of of it simply unobtainable.
Similarly the related peer-review process as I've said is great, but is not flawless as I've referenced others pointing out and providing examples of earlier.
You criticized me earlier for not being consistent in the references and methods I consider and share.
There is more than one form of inquiry into science/knowledge that can and should be used alongside or at times alternatively to the formal scientific method. It depends on what exactly are validating.
Consistency is fine when we can apply it, but the end goal is accuracy, not simple consistency for consistency sake.
Look at fields like Archeology, Jurisprudence, History and my own favorite Theology. In this case with Covid and natural immune systems, we come to an area in medical science where for various reasons some of the real facts and numbers are contestable and murky.
You tried to say it should all yield to studies and peer review but I showed your own link where the Harvard piece you referenced stated the issue around the immune system and the effect of supplements and herbs etc. was in their words complicated. and not something science knows right now.
This requires that you first grasp that not every inquiry into knowledge/science will yield to the one method and process you appear to place most of your trust in.
The devil it is said, is in the details.