Believing in experts

[Dill]

(07-03-2023, 05:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: In my opinion honey would be good science. Effective and repeatable. It may not have arisen through what we now know as the scientific method, but it was proven time and again. That was the best science.

Failed science isn’t bad science, it’s a process. It is part of the journey.  In your leukemia example I do want the best science available because it is provable and repeatable. I don’t have an issue with the term “best science available “ when it actually is. Educated guesses aren’t science, and aren’t the best science available because it’s not science. Tell us this is an educated guess based on past experience. Or call it experimental as they do with clinical trials. The best science available is whatever is provable and repeatable. Anything beyond that may be part of the scientific process, but no more. A lot of people should probably take down their pretentious “I believe in science” yard signs.

Sounds like you are saying "no" to my definition of science, 

the one you would be learning if you studied science in any modern university in the world.

In the case of pandemics, it seems that "educated guesses" would be unavoidable,

but they would not be separate from what you call the "best science available."

If the pandemic is deadly, they might be unable to wait very long, before rising deaths outweigh the risks.

You'd agree on that wouldn't you? 

I think the yard signs appeared because science was politicized during the last pandemic,

not least because one side gained power by fomenting distrust of science. 

Notice how that continues in this thread.