Belief Versus The Scientific Method

So you're not answering my question. If this was a UK law court I'm allowed to take an adverse inference, and the inference I take is that you're anti-vax.
Ok, that clears a few things up for me.Could you now tell us how old you think the earth is?

In post 128 I mentioned how men of science with opposing claims each believe that the evidence supports them. Do you think they do not use the scientific method? If their field does, then what we have is belief, not knowledge. The data that may have been gotten using a scientific method in and of itself seems useless and merely something from which people use beliefs to interpret it!In another post I noted what another man of science said
"Saying that no laws existed as the little blob that would become the universe began it's magic superspurt of growth requires faith. Believing one expert over another about covid requires faith. Believing that all things observed in the natural worls and universe had to have resulted from processes or laws that now exist on earth requires faith. Believing that time exists as we know it in the distant universe requires faith. etc"Arizona State University physicist Paul Davies has noted that the work of science depends upon beliefs—that the hidden architecture of the universe, all the constants and laws of nature that sustain the scientific enterprise, will hold. As he wrote in his book “The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World”: “Just because the sun has risen every day of your life, there is no guarantee that it will therefore rise tomorrow. The belief that it will—that there are indeed dependable regularities of nature—is an act of faith, but one which is indispensable to the progress of science.”At Its Heart, Science Is Faith-Based TooSo many feel that beliefs are involved. Feel welcome to prove otherwise. The responses I have gotten seem to be rude and empty so far. Funny that you ask me for something, when the rude and vacuous spammers are ignored?
When I showed a poster wrong on what the Canadian PM said, I saw no admission of error on their part. Other points I raised and they were not addressed. I understand a lot of the old guard here have passed away, and that there seems to be not much new blood. Is that why the rude people seem to get a pass?

I am pro real science. You should try it sometime. PS we are not in a UK kangaroo court. Say hi to Prince PhilipEdited by drlove, : No reason given.

Great so why not answer my question? The cock has crowed at least thrice now?

Cool, now we're getting somewhere. Can you give us some examples of certain realities/laws/forces that work and that are used in the scientific method in a very many cases?

You really are on a roll and once again you are incorrect. I wasn't offended, I was just pointing out that you were incorrect.I am not offended by you not knowing wat you are talking about, but I am surprised that you are not. I guess you don't know what systematic mean either.

Tens of thousands of experts on your side? I call BullShit, you can't name 100 experts on your side. I kept meaning to come back to this one. This is a classic example of alternate facts, that is spread by bullshit artists like you.There are no 150 studies showing masks are ineffective or harmful relative to infectious disease transmission published in any reputable medical journal anywhere on this planet. There have not been 5 studies showing masks are ineffective or harmful relative to infectious disease transmission published in any reputable medical journal anywhere on this planet since the Covid epidemic began. This kind of deliberate spreading of misinformation that endangers lives and public health and is directly responsible for the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.Yeah, I'm talking about you, Asshole!

I will bet that real science is exactly the same thing as true science that we've heard mentioned a few times here in the past.

Try addressing the topic. Also my posts if you are going to bother responding to them. Save your twenty questions polygraph game for someone else

I did bring up the field of medical science and a few doctors representing that. See what you can do with that.

Maybe say something that shows you know what you are talking about, or attempts to rather than making silly accusations that have no basis in reality and no support offered.If one applies beliefs in a systematic way to evidences, then that is a perfect use of the word. Maybe quit the pretense of being some word scholar as well.

There you go abusing the language again with the word reputable. You do not get to say what we accept or believe, or what has a reputation. You merely choose one side you want to believe. The article did cite 150 studies. If you want to go through each and show how it is some sort of con job, feel free. Empty claims that they are no good is nothing more than hand waving of course.
In some places the majority of people getting sick are the vaccinated. In your standard, apparently they are endangering lives! There are folks on the other side of the issue who claim that the system that disallowed life saving alternative and early treatments are actual murderers. There is also some who suspect that the vaccines may weaken immunity and be dangerous. It is also known that the vaccinated spread the sickness. So no one needs your ones sided rude and ignorant accusations, thanks.Edited by drlove, : No reason given.

Hard to say, I must have missed that. However the issue here is whether you know the difference! So far I see zero that says you do.

So, no attempt to answer my question. Here it is again.

Unless you claim that the scientific method is not involved in medical science, try addressing the answer you received rather than pretend there was none.
Also, to name a few fields where the scientific method is used and works fine are, nuclear science (there are plenty of nukes) and medicine, metallurgy, robotics and etcEdited by drlove, : No reason given.