That’s true, it SHOULDN’T be, but I don’t know how it’s possible! They SHOULD be able to, but I’ve already proven beyond a shadow of doubt that they don’t. Not always and quite possibly more frequently than we know!
I’m relativly sure it’s been done, but we can’t know that. HUMAN conclusions be they scientific or what have you, couldn’t by definition BE “perfect”. There’s some potential for having overlooked something. I think.
Maybe this is because I work in medicine, you know where things are “sterile”? How is it possible for ANYTHING to be perfectly “sterile”? Not shooting blanks, but the kind without potential “pathogens/foreign agents”. One can heat something to thousands of degrees, but a pathogen may be there science has yet to detect.
I’ll give you yet another case: how about scientists studying the effects of red wine...surely you’ve heard of the benefits of anti-oxidants, and of course there’s alcohol, grapes (sucrose), etc. and their effects on the human body (and mind).
Is it good for you, bad, good, bad...the data’s hard to keep up with...just like drugs & other foods, to the point I don’t even listen anymore cause it changes all the time and may not even be “right” in the first place!
Now let’s say one of the dozens of scientists working on this research had a parent die from liver cirrhosis due to alcholism.
Let’s say another’s great uncle owns a vineyard.
You can see how either could come to biased conclusions outside of science that they might not even be remotely aware of, and no one else on the team could either!
You might say, well one or two will be over-ridden by all the others outcomes, etc., but add to that all the others’ unknown biases OR what if one or both of those two were in charge of the team? Then POLITICS begins to effect outcome!
BTW, I see this in nursing decisions that make ME sick! Let alone doctors putting feeding tubes into dying people in a CRAZY misunderstood ‘first do no harm’ idiocy run off the rails OR another way to get yet another payment for an unneeded procedure from medicare!
HEY! Examples with not a thing in the world to do with God/religion btw!
It occurs to me that you and I are virtaully on the same page, working towards a conclusion of sorts, yet not concensus, just from a different angle! :)
But once a scientist suggests that the only answer to an unsolved mystery is God, you need to fire him. That’s not the default answer, and he could give that answer to any question posed to him. If that answer is good enough for you, then you have no need for science at all.
>>>>>Agreed, I would posit that the opposite is also true, someone that submits there’s “no place for God” in science or that a scientific mystery CAN NEVER EVER BE God, is EQUALLY sadly mistaken and disingenuine! :()
I believe you understand that there are good scientists and bad scientists. There are good doctors and hopefully fewer bad doctors. But yes, they exist.
Bad scientists are less likely to last long because the of the peer review process and the entire Scientific Method. I forget how long ago, but maybe 20 years ago a couple of scientists made worldwide headlines with their discovery of “Cold Fusion.”
The trouble was that nobody else could recreate what they did. It was probably the most recent version of the Piltdown Man fraud.
But it wasn’t church ladies who exposed the Piltdown Man fraud, keyboard warriors who exposed the Cold Fusion fraud. It was other scientists. The scientific method not only expects, but demands that your conclusions be checked and verified by other experts in the same field, published for comment and then perhaps accepted as a new finding.
Doctors kind of are subject to Board and State investigation if they get enough complaints, so it’s not the same process at all.
Your red wine example is an interesting one, because you’re right about how the discussion went.
But keep in mind that it is very hard for the public, much less our stupid MSM, to detect a true scientific conclusion from a “rent a guy with a science degree” and an opinion to issue a press release. Having a science degree doesn’t mean that you even agree with the scientific method. It means you got the answers right on the test questions you were given.
At any given time, there is bad science out there. This is especially true in any BRAND NEW TOP OF THE NEWS HOUR thing that will interest you. Hence your red wine example.
Parts of the Einstein’s Theory of Relativiy are being tweaked today, and that’s been around over 100 years, but the tweaks are at the edges. Nobody has blown a hole through it, and it’s mostly been confirmed. The Theory of Evolution is older than that, and the same is true.
That’s an uncomfortable fact for some to accept, but it is what it is. I have trouble understanding how I could travel at the speed of light from earth for 20 years, and return, and it would be (oh, I’m going to screw up here...) maybe 50,000 years after I left. But the Theory of Relativity shows that to be true (but probably not my dates).
Once something has been out there for decades and subjected to rigorous examination by people much more specialized in the various aspects of this, we need to say, it is what it is, even if we don’t understand it fully, or we’re not entirely happy about it.