Lets use coffee as an example because there seems to be a lot of flip flopping on that one. Some studies report health benefits while others negative health consequences. Picking the studies that say coffee is good because I like coffee would obviously not be scientific so I could do one of two things:
1. Dive deep into the science and try to take a well informed stance
2. Skim through the basics of the reports and make a quicker but less informed stance.

Realistically most people choose #2 for most things because #1 simply isn't feasible plus it is too slow in certain situations. So for coffee I could look for something like the number of studies that say good vs number that say bad and choose the one with more studies. Or I might take a stance based on polls of scientists.

That's a really poor example.

Coffee being "good" or "bad" is not only a subjective conclusion, but you can't detail the number of variables that go into that study to the degree necessary to make a definitive conclusion.

Some drink decaf because regular coffee makes them jumpy or causes heart issues (PVCs or palpitations). 
Some can't drink coffee because it raises their blood pressure.
Some can't drink coffee because it caused digestive problems.
Some NEED coffee to help with headaches -- expands blood vessels.
Some benefit from coffee as it helps with prostate problems and may prevent cancer (some = "men").

So, even IF you trust the "study" that may or may not have been scientifically obtained, you personally may find that your results drinking coffee regularly differ greatly from the study's findings.

Genetics and individual tolerances and preferences play more into the benefits of coffee than does a study that, to me, could provide nothing more than "Here's what the people in the study experienced."  That's not scientific evidence.  It's called a study -- and for a reason.  Studies provide data.  The more data, the better.  But studies alone do not answer the question, "Do I believe coffee is good for me just because the study tells me it is?"

That's a really poor example.

Coffee being "good" or "bad" is not only a subjective conclusion, but you can't detail the number of variables that go into that study to the degree necessary to make a definitive conclusion.

Some drink decaf because regular coffee makes them jumpy or causes heart issues (PVCs or palpitations). 
Some can't drink coffee because it raises their blood pressure.
Some can't drink coffee because it caused digestive problems.
Some NEED coffee to help with headaches -- expands blood vessels.
Some benefit from coffee as it helps with prostate problems and may prevent cancer (some = "men").

So, even IF you trust the "study" that may or may not have been scientifically obtained, you personally may find that your results drinking coffee regularly differ greatly from the study's findings.

Genetics and individual tolerances and preferences play more into the benefits of coffee than does a study that, to me, could provide nothing more than "Here's what the people in the study experienced."  That's not scientific evidence.  It's called a study -- and for a reason.  Studies provide data.  The more data, the better.  But studies alone do not answer the question, "Do I believe coffee is good for me just because the study tells me it is?"

Of course the study of benefits and drawbacks of coffee are much more complex and it isn't all one side or another. It was just an example for how lay people go through life trying to base their behavior on all the data that gets put in front of us.

Of course the study of benefits and drawbacks of coffee are much more complex and it isn't all one side or another. It was just an example for how lay people go through life trying to base their behavior on all the data that gets put in front of us.

Seems like you believe any study that's published on any subject that is marginally science-related is by definition a scientific study.

Seems like you believe any study that's published on any subject that is marginally science-related is by definition a scientific study.

Nice try.
Every time you hear the news report the results of some new study do you stop everything you do and dive deep into the research? I doubt it. I suspect you do like the rest of us, take it into account, maybe weigh it against any conflicting studies you heard before. Or do you just believe nothing you hear reported to you about science news?

Nice try.
Every time you hear the news report the results of some new study do you stop everything you do and dive deep into the research? I doubt it. I suspect you do like the rest of us, take it into account, maybe weigh it against any conflicting studies you heard before. Or do you just believe nothing you hear reported to you about science news?

I'm a research junkie.  I deep-dive into any and every thing that grabs my interest.

So, your suspicions are off base.  I've been this way my whole life.  My mother bought us a set of Encyclopedia Brittanica, when we couldn't find money to put gas in the car sometimes.  I was 7, and the rest of the family almost never touched them.  I'd start to look into one thing I heard or read, and next thing I knew, I had 6-10 volumes open as I followed all the "See [this article] for more" suggestions.

The Internet places more information at our fingertips than anyone has ever had access to, so getting pulled into those rabbit holes is easy for me.

Any conclusions or calls to action, I absolutely take time to look up.  If some scientists discovered a new species of tree frog in Bolivia, I'm probably not THAT interested unless it includes that the frog is theorized to be from Jupiter.   

But, this topic isn't about me.  It's about YOU and YOUR beliefs.  I think it's about time I spilled the beans and posted the information I based this poll on.

When I have the time to wordsmith it, I'll post all that -- with video!   

I'm a research junkie.  I deep-dive into any and every thing that grabs my interest.

So, your suspicions are off base.  I've been this way my whole life.  My mother bought us a set of Encyclopedia Brittanica, when we couldn't find money to put gas in the car sometimes.  I was 7, and the rest of the family almost never touched them.  I'd start to look into one thing I heard or read, and next thing I knew, I had 6-10 volumes open as I followed all the "See [this article] for more" suggestions.

The Internet places more information at our fingertips than anyone has ever had access to, so getting pulled into those rabbit holes is easy for me.

Any conclusions or calls to action, I absolutely take time to look up.  If some scientists discovered a new species of tree frog in Bolivia, I'm probably not THAT interested unless it includes that the frog is theorized to be from Jupiter.   

But, this topic isn't about me.  It's about YOU and YOUR beliefs.  I think it's about time I spilled the beans and posted the information I based this poll on.

When I have the time to wordsmith it, I'll post all that -- with video!   

Awesome, I try to do the same on issues that I find interesting or want to be able to speak on the subject with confidence.

As to my beliefs, I am not sure what else you are trying to draw out here. I tried to state how I look at science. I think we would need more specific terms to get more specific an answer, like certain types of science, certain ideas within science, etc.

Awesome, I try to do the same on issues that I find interesting or want to be able to speak on the subject with confidence.

As to my beliefs, I am not sure what else you are trying to draw out here. I tried to state how I look at science. I think we would need more specific terms to get more specific an answer, like certain types of science, certain ideas within science, etc.

You have full latitude to define any terms in any way you wish.  That was included in this exercise.

Define away, if the terms are confusing without a Glossary.

You have full latitude to define any terms in any way you wish.  That was included in this exercise.

Define away, if the terms are confusing without a Glossary.

I am saying your question is so broad, it would be easier to have if you narrowed it down to a certain area of focus.

However if you are just leaving it broad on purpose to see where the conversation goes then that's fine. I don't have any particular direction I want to take it thats why I offered my general statement about the scientific process.

 

My take. Observation of something that takes place in the natural world, coming up with a hypothesis to explain your observation. Coming up with an experimentation of what you observe, and then repeating it under a controlled environment. Then making adjustments to your hypothesis and repeating your experiment over again in a controlled environment.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Science is a PROCESS.  Calling something "Climate Science" or "Earth Science" requires that there be a set of documented and objective PROCESSES and PROCEDURES which collect data through measurements, observations, experimentation and so on.  That information is then analyzed, compared and documented in ways that can be used to explain the conclusions, predictions and degree of reliability drawn from them.

Science is not a belief system, or a religion, or a code of values.  ...  Science is a process of 'pinging' reality (or nature) and getting an answer back.

When you hear someone say, "I believe in science," that's an indication they have no idea what science is.  What they are really saying is they believe in "scientists," which really means, "I believe in authority figures."

You might as well say, "I believe in calculus."  Calculus is a tool for solving problems, but it's not the answer to the problems. 

Science provides tools by which we can discover the answers we seek.  But science is NOT a massive warehouse of data and knowledge.  Those data are in most cases the results of applying science.  Sometimes was can get answers without using science, but we still may use science to test and verify the answers.  For example, we know that water is the one element which is denser at room temperature than it is at cold/freezing temperatures.  It's why frozen water on a lake sits on top of the still unfrozen water in underneath.  That's associated with the fact that water expands as it freezes.  That expansion reduces the density of ice by about 9% down to about 4C.  These facts were known by observation long before science came along to explain WHY water does what it does.  These properties of water can be observed, measured and documented in experiments that subject water to various temperatures.  Density, temperature and volume can all be measured.  The procedures can be well documented, repeated, and the results compared to previous experiments. 

Basically, the facts we learned about how water changes at different temperatures and pressures are provable and can be demonstrated repeatedly.  There is nothing to believe in. Science was the process used to gather and analyze the facts which, when the evidence is offered, PROVES the conclusions drawn from it are correct and irrefutable. 

Sometimes answers can be arrived at through non-scientific means.  In that case, the answer is staring at you in the face without a shred of "science" having been involved.  Science can then be used to validate, verify and replicate the process that discovered the answer, but the answer existed on its own with or without "science".  The answer only requires that we accept it once we have decided it is correct.

If you have to believe in the science to support Climate Change political policies, then you are not believing in science.  You are believing in something that the government wants to do which they justified by calling it "Science."  It's been done many times before, and people still fall for it.

Above all else, when the government tells us there is a crisis that can spell the end of the world for us all, and then they continue to do the things they tell us not to do, that's EVIDENCE that they are not as concerned with the predictions as they'd like the rest of us to be.  Science tells us that this observation provides proof that the so-called "science" being cited is incorrect or was never really science.

This is the video that sparked this question.  I recommend watching the entire thing if this topic holds any interest for you.

To finish... you develop scientific theory and you develop more experiments to prove your theory. But as of late, I read an article that said plainly that you follow the money of who's funding the project. Lately, more scientists too keep the funding, they tailor their experiments to fit what they want not base on observation. They have a belief and mold their experiments to fit what they're being paid for. That's why I'm a little weary of all these studies proving one thing and then you have another study that contradicts it. My two cents on it.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Science

The Earth was the center of the universe, until it wasn't

The Earth was flat, until it wasn't. (But it almost pushed me over the edge when I found out)

We were supposed to have an Ice Age by the 1990s and all be dead and frozen

The Ice Caps were supposed to have melted off and we're all underwater by now

I'm smarter than the rest of you... wait that one is true   

Would you trust Dr Jill Biden (Doctor of Education) to be surgeon general?

There are lots of people in charge of areas of science that they have no business being in charge of.

Doctor Bill Gates in charge of human vaccination?
Maybe ok for computer “vaccination”, but humans?

Would you trust Dr Jill Biden (Doctor of Education) to be surgeon general?

There are lots of people in charge of areas of science that they have no business being in charge of.

Doctor Bill Gates in charge of human vaccination?
Maybe ok for computer “vaccination”, but humans?

I studied and received my degree in Computer Science.  But, the classes I took were not at all about science.  They were more about engineering, proven to my mind when I was taking classes like theory of automata and game theory.  The degree program was part of the Math Department.  Other universities offered Computer Engineering degrees, which is more what it resembles.  Whether designing software or hardware, the process is more like building a building: using standards, choosing the best components for that application, and integrating every system in the building to create a working result.

Bottom line:  you can try to label any body of knowledge "science", but that is not inline with the proper definition.

Would you trust Dr Jill Biden (Doctor of Education) to be surgeon general?

There are lots of people in charge of areas of science that they have no business being in charge of.

Doctor Bill Gates in charge of human vaccination?
Maybe ok for computer “vaccination”, but humans?

Bill Gates does not invent vaccines.  But funds and deals with logistics.  Neither require any extensive medical knowledge.

The Jill Biden reference is valid.   But I don't see her being recommended for anything out of her expertise.

.

Science

The Earth was the center of the universe, until it wasn't

The Earth was flat, until it wasn't. (But it almost pushed me over the edge when I found out)

We were supposed to have an Ice Age by the 1990s and all be dead and frozen

The Ice Caps were supposed to have melted off and we're all underwater by now

I'm smarter than the rest of you... wait that one is true   

Your first two are terrible examples because that wasn't science. It was just a widely accepted belief.

As for the ice age prediction in the 1990s, that was never accepted as a mainstream prediction. Only a small percentage believed it, the vast majority of predictions during that time predicted warming. The news probably picked up the ice age because it made a good headline.

Would you trust Dr Jill Biden (Doctor of Education) to be surgeon general?

There are lots of people in charge of areas of science that they have no business being in charge of.

Doctor Bill Gates in charge of human vaccination?
Maybe ok for computer “vaccination”, but humans?

It depends on the nature of the job. When someone is the head of an entire department it is much more of a managerial position than one requiring special knowledge of the job of the department. All things equal I do think it would be better to have someone trained in the specialty of the department but that is no guarantee they would be good at running a whole department.