Christianity is heading for a full allegorization

[HappySkeptic]

As Steven Novella said "There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?"

Dot points:


People, namely scientists, conduct science. Science does not conduct itself.

Scientists, being people, can sometimes fail at using logic properly to evaluate results. They can also end up doing very shoddy research.

Subjectivity plays an inevitable role when interpreting results and determining conclusions. And as such, biases are at play as well.

Politics itself is certainly at play when it comes to conducting science (e.g., grant providers funding only selective topics for research depending on certain ideological views).

Science has known limitations.

Your view of science (and Steven's view of science) sounds quite ideological to me.

Yup, scientists are flawed.  Some theories are later found to be incomplete or incorrect.  The point is that the the work of many scientists is self-correcting IF they are actually doing science, and not pseudoscience.

I have worked in science, and the proper mindset is to identify any piece of data that does not conform to theory.  That is when things get interesting.  Usually the data is bad.  Sometimes is leads to new information or theory.

Pseudo-science ignores contrary data, and invites bad data without skepticism if the data advances a particular point of view.

The only ideology a scientist has is that there is only one reality, and critical investigation will eventually uncover it.  If investigation blows a previous belief out of the water, so be it - provided the evidence is found to be sound.

Science is also never a sure thing.  There are uncertainties around every measurement, and possibility of mistakes.  It is always a probabilities game, but it only takes one strong experiment that can be reproduced to change minds.

During the whole "Invermectin treats COVID" debacle, I had friends who told me that it has been proved to work in combination with Zinc. I was skeptical for a few reasons.
1) This was a single tiny study.
2) Zinc is known to be used by the body to fight viruses, but there has never been evidence that taking Zinc helps any infection
3) There has never been good evidence for Invermectin being a treatment for other viruses.
4) Invermectin by-itself has already proven to NOT be effective at treating COVID.

Sure enough, the study was debunked. But, to a right-winger who wants to believe, this one study was "scientific proof" that it worked. It wasn't. That's not the way science works. The probability, based on the 4 points I made was that the study was bad. Of course, it could've been later found to be correct. That's the beauty of science - more evidence reduces uncertainty.