What you are describing is not science. It may be expert opinion. If you were describing science, you would be criticizing the methods, not the conclusions. This is what has bothered me during this whole pandemic. "Trust the science". And then nobody presents any science. They just spout expert opinion.
Show me a falsifiable thesis, the actual data, and the methods taken to try and disprove the hypothesis. If you have done that, nobody can claim it isn't science. The real problem is people have confused science and religion. They are not the same and they are not in conflict. Science, like anything, is certainly bounded by beliefs, but is distinguished by the continuing struggle to rise above them through rigorous processes.
Peer reviewed science is about the process. Science is not now, nor has it ever been, about conclusions. Genuine science does not make conclusions. If you are talking about conclusions from science being wrong, you haven't understood the basic tenets of what it is.
You mentioned peer reviewed science that was "completely wrong". That appears to be a comment about a conclusion, rather than a methodology. My apologies if you meant to imply something different and I misunderstood your message. However, I am quite certain I am not epistemologically challenged. We are supposed to be on the same side here. I didn't personally attack you. I questioned your analysis. There is no need for personal insults.
What you are describing is not science. It may be expert opinion. If you were describing science, you would be criticizing the methods, not the conclusions. This is what has bothered me during this whole pandemic. "Trust the science". And then nobody presents any science. They just spout expert opinion.
Show me a falsifiable thesis, the actual data, and the methods taken to try and disprove the hypothesis. If you have done that, nobody can claim it isn't science. The real problem is people have confused science and religion. They are not the same and they are not in conflict. Science, like anything, is certainly bounded by beliefs, but is distinguished by the continuing struggle to rise above them through rigorous processes.
Peer reviewed science is about the process. Science is not now, nor has it ever been, about conclusions. Genuine science does not make conclusions. If you are talking about conclusions from science being wrong, you haven't understood the basic tenets of what it is.
You mentioned peer reviewed science that was "completely wrong". That appears to be a comment about a conclusion, rather than a methodology. My apologies if you meant to imply something different and I misunderstood your message. However, I am quite certain I am not epistemologically challenged. We are supposed to be on the same side here. I didn't personally attack you. I questioned your analysis. There is no need for personal insults.