Belief Versus The Scientific Method

Reminding you to have some manners and not name call, by giving you a mild dose of your own medicine is actually wise and sound. I know how to deal with your type.Edited by drlove, : No reason given.

Edited by drlove, : No reason given.

Says you. However the top science advisor in medical issues is considered to be the voice of science, and speaks as if he were. However worthless that is doesn't matter. You can have faith in either or neither. It is a matter of belief. The evidence says whatever the hired expert wants it to say!Edited by drlove, : No reason given.

Not sure why you spam a bunch of *******s? Nor do we see what is of worth or not in your strange posts. You are on the cusp of having all posts seen as truly worthless.In science, they say a theory basically NEVER becomes a fact!When does a theory become a fact and who decides? | New ScientistEdited by drlove, : No reason given.

? Why not just spit it out?

Demon talk

You believe science is not a matter of belief. Both doctors in the OP might believe the same, yet they have opposite claims. Same methods, different beliefs. You can't divorce belief from science as much as you may be desperate to do so.Remember theory is never fact! That leaves a lot of room for belief.When does a theory become a fact and who decides? | New ScientistEdited by drlove, : No reason given.

Stop blathering and trying to sound scary, and make an attempt to say something relevant or interesting. Watch, I'll lead the way..Science is not based on evidence, it is based on a belief based interpretation of evidence! That is one reason we can get totally different claims from different experts.Edited by drlove, : No reason given.

Edited by drlove, : No reason given.

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. Thanks

Did you actually think using the F word helped you? The OP did mentions people in the name of science telling very different stories."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.”Is Science a belief system? Yes it is. | by Ng Xin Zhao | Medium

What was it in your spam post that you would like us to look at that was 'truth'? Good luck with that

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 Too - WSJNo one appointed you the 'faith czar' that dictates what faith is good or bad. Thank you very much

The group was a minority, not most Canadians. However the issue is that he claimed of that minority, people are often racists and etc." he painted “these people,” the anti-vaxxers, as “often” being women-haters, racists and science-deniers, as well."
Rex Murphy: Justin Trudeau's blind hatred of anti-vaxxers | National PostAs I said that is hate speech.By the way, since big names in medical science have said the science is not at all on the PMs side, we see people do choose what to believe as science!"In the interview, Trudeau said that "there are people who are opposed to vaccines, that don't believe in science, that are often misogynists, racist."Trudeau went on to say that this was "a small group, and so we have to make a choice, as a leader, as a country. do we tolerate these people? because over 80 percent of people have already done their part."FLASHBACK: Video resurfaces of Trudeau calling anti-vaxxers racists and misogynists | The Post Millennial | thepostmillennial.com

So we can have faith in things with no beard and that is acceptable and superior?

You believe science is not based on beliefs. However as the OP shows, people using science believe different things entirely! I have pointed out that interpreting evidence is involved. That involves belief! You need to do more than stamp your feet and protest loudly. Either face facts that belief is very much involved or prove otherwise.You claim one of the doctors is a fraud. (I assume you mean the one often credited with inventing the mrna vaccine) Sorry, there are hundreds more medical experts, yeah, tens of thousands that agree with him! You need more than a wave here.Tell us what science you are involved in that is devoid of any belief? Maybe you are an exception?Then you rudely suggest that theory is fact? Or..? You can huff and puff till the cows come home, all you offer so far is attitude, presumption, and foaming of the beak.

Not sure where the crossed wire was. I was thinking of the link I posted. Here is a quote
"Wolf KirchmeirBlind River, Ontario, CanadaA theory never becomes a fact. It is an explanation of one or more facts.Tim LewisNarberth, Pembrokeshire, UKA well-supported evidence-based theory becomes acceptable until disproved. It never evolves to a fact, and that’s a fact.Nick CanningColeraine, County Londonderry, UKMany scientists, including the late Stephen Hawking, are happy to say that a theory never becomes a fact. It is always an interpretive structure that links facts, which are themselves reproducible experimental observations."
When does a theory become a fact and who decides? | New ScientistAll the replies here suggest strongly that a theory is not fact. Ever. So rather than rude little vacuous outbursts, try addressing issues if you bother to post. Adults are present.There are many that admit the glaring similarities to science and other belief systems. example:"There are lots of other ways in which science is suspiciously similar to a religion. It has a canon of holy texts. It has its own specialized mysterious language that only initiates can understand. It has an initiation ordeal, call it graduate school, upon which you finish and you get a ceremonial name change. It has a system for the indoctrination of youth. It has deified saints and martyrs, you know Galileo, Newton, Einstein. It has schisms and heretics. It has the faithful lay believers, who actually don’t understand the esoteric knowledge of the religion, but they believe in it anyway. It has a divinatory practice for the attainment of truth, called experimentation. It has a body of ritual built on top of it, that is called technology. I mean the whole thing!"What is the difference between science and religion? – ReviseSociology