It seems clear your issue is not with science but your understanding of it. Everything is science must be physically demonstrated, then repeated and evaluated for validity....that is how science functions.
My family did not run drug safety and efficacy studies at the V.A. Seems to me your family has zero to do with Science.
No offense, but your problems are based on some ignorance. For example, your lack of knowledge about viruses. Viruses cannot move on their own, for example. A virus cannot reproduce by itself--it hijacks a cell's machinery to reproduce.
There are those who are honestly questioning some of these basic scientific principles. In fact, SCIENTISTS are doing that CONSTANTLY!!! Science is DESIGNED to do that. That's a fundamental PART of science. It is a discipline, a methodology of CONSTANT questioning. The last significant questioning of Einstein is probably the gravitational wave investigation that had such amazing success recently. Einstein's theory predicted that such exist. Had they not been detected, it would cast doubt on Einstein's version of physics. Not even Einstein is simply assumed by scientists. In biology, every time we find an ancient bone it tests the ToE. Every single time. So, questioning is GREAT!!! No scientist would object to questioning. That is what the DO. The issue is that rejecting the findings of a huge number of experts (of those who DEDICATE their professional careers on questioning, where the rewards are finding FALSEHOODS, like Einstein did) on the basis of some argument without finding out EXACTLY why so many experts reject that specific argument is not acceptable. If you want to argue with speciation, then you better find out WHY that is a foundation of ALL modern biology! If you don't, then you are to be criticized for being a non-thinker jumping to conclusions without even bothering to ASK!! etc. Disagreeing or not understanding is an OK starting point. We ALL start there. But, when the entire earth full of scientists comes to one single conclusion on something you can't just ignore that without asking about it BEFORE making claims to the contrary. And, by asking I mean asking these scientists why they have accepted the answers, and to what degree they have accepted them. So, why do scientists accept speciation? Why do they accept the Big Bang? If you want to doubt this stuff, you better be looking at what SCIENCE says about them, because if you don't even know that, then you are simply not being serious.
In theory, Big Yes! In practice, Big Forget It! Most Science is not open ended but, designed to prove a desired conclusion such as drug safety and efficacy studies or EIR's. Consider experiments designed to prove a basic, like Mr. Higgs' boson. Was anyone involved willing to consider it may not be there? That it may be just a fudge factor to balance an equation I don't think so. The scientist were a cheering section, hardly impartial. <sigh> Like Christianity, Science has theory and almost unrelated to the core, practice. Moi r > g They needed an American to isolate Insulin! Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Absolutely people were ready to accept the results of the work being done at Cern. From the beginning, there was no consideration to stop investigating physics on that scale - including continuing to test the Higgs theory. Science doesn't stop questioning after one event. That machine, the largest and most complex machine ever built by man, was certainly NOT built with the sole purpose of covering for Higgs. That is an absolutely preposterous contention. And, NO, Christianity has NOTHING like science - not even slightly. The root assumptions of science are not the same as the root assumptions of religion. What constitutes evidence in religion is nothing like what science requires. Theory in science means nothing at all like what it means in common parlance or religion. The process of science for extending human knowledge has nothing comparable in religion. That's not even surprising. Religion isn't interested in the same questions that are central to science - the difference being how vs. why.
You are almost there but, don't quite get my meaning. Question: Were any scientist at CERN willing to accept Mr. Higgs' boson may just not be there? Short Answer: No! They believed "If not Mr. Higgs' boson then what", should have been an attitude in at least one. Just for Science's sake. True?
As you point out, it doesn't actually matter much whether a virus is alive in terms of the scientific quest for answering the questions of how things work - the objective of science. We know how a virus works to a good level of detail. Suggesting that the consensus on how a virus works is religion is absolute nonsense. A scientific consensus is far from being that meaningless. First of all, note that there is no proof in science other than proof of falsity. So, without proof of, say, Einstein's theories, the theory of evolution, etc., what we have is consensus on how things work. And, science progresses very well with that.
I noted that you are claiming that “note that there is no proof in science other than proof of falsity.” I have no clue what it possibly could mean but I can guess that you are referring to “ scientific method.” Is it correct?
Yes. In scientific method, there is no concept of proving something to be true. The emphasis is on pounding on hypotheses in attempting to prove them false. Theories become accepted and important as they stand the unceasing testing they receive.
A grey area? Not in the laws of physics or any of the other scientific laws. They accurately define the workings of the forces of nature and the universe we live in. Science does not attempt to prove something doesn't exist. At best it can be used to attempt to find that something, but failure proves nothing. Where science blurs the edges with philosophy is in things like the multiverse theory. Since it cannot be measured or detected, its nothing but elegant math at this point. That of course is completely different than the status of the Big Bang theory where there is an enormous amount of corroborating evidence, not the least of which is a string of successful predictions. So abuse of science can certainly be "grey", but the science itself should be transparent.
Wonderful! Can you please answer the following questions: - Does one have to follow the scientific method in order to be a scientist? - Should we disregard any theories which were created by those who directly opposed the scientific method? - Why in the 21th century, in all universities around the US they do still teach theories of those who rejected and opposed the scientific method, - starting from Newton and going through Maxwell, Ernest Rutherford, that genetic laws guy, what is the name of that Xn monk - Gregor Mendel, Niels Bohr, you name it and include Albert Einstein, in science classes? - Shouldn’t all the theories above be banned as fake science?
