You seem to be deluded in what makes up "science" and what may or may not be submitted as a scientific claim. You also seem to be incapable of recognizing the fact there are varying degrees of certitude with repect to the claims science makes, whether those claims are made by "professionals," as you call them, or the man on the street. In short, your thinking on these matters may be in need of an epistomological enema. One way or another we'll all get one, if not within the next few minutes, then within the next century. That is a scientific prediction.
You also seem to be incapable of recognizing the fact there are varying degrees of certitude with repect to the claims science makes, whether those claims are made by "professionals," as you call them, or the man on the street.
Define "confidence interval".
No, I'm not, and I don't believe there is anything I have posted that remotely suggests that I'm not aware that "there are varying degrees of certitude" of scientific claims. What else do you think I could possibly mean when I point out that there is no such thing as proof in a natural science.
whether those claims are made by "professionals," as you call them, or the man on the street. In short, your thinking on these matters may be in need of an epistomological enema. One way or another we'll all get one, if not within the next few minutes, then within the next century. That is a scientific prediction.
Long on pompous hot air, short on sense.