[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by sk270

Given the posts above, I think this thread is about to take off again on another tangent so I hope you see this.

I've spent some more time thinking about what you said. In the beginning , I should have said that I think that the categorical mistrust of science is an error. We need to be more nuanced in our interpretation of research.

I was fired up by what I saw as a wholesale rejection of research findings by some of those posting in this thread.

The research on masks, and many other aspects of Covid-19, is being done all around the world. I do believe the science when I see laboratory, modelling, in-hospital, epidemiological research from many countries and many researchers, funded by a myriad of sources that reach a reasonable consensus.

I agree that science, as most things done by humans, is flawed as humans are flawed. However, I submit that it is the best that we have. The more complex the question, the less likely that science can readily answer it. An example would be quantum physics. Simpler questions can be answered, such as how much of a cough or sneeze is captured by a surgical mask. Some questions cannot be answered by science, such as the perfect way to deal with a pandemic.

As I said, I did some more thinking about this last night and thought I'd try to further clarify my position.

I'm glad I took the time to respond to you and vice versa. I got a lot out of our exchange.

I can agree with all of this. When reading studies of subject matter I can relate or have education on I’m able to make educated opinions of their work. Now this goes only into realms which I can grasp though. Like astrophysics, I know very little of quasars and quarks. In these studies I don’t even have the chance of pronouncing half the words let alone understanding. However when reading about a paper medium filtering out particulate matter, yeah I may have some training in that subject. I think I can understand what they are conveying.

Having said that, I believe that people can understand a lot of what scientists tell us as long as we can identify our own limitations.

I agree that the scientific process is the best we have. I believe most science is impartial and true. However there is enough manipulation of the sciences to warrant skepticism. That was basically my position. Just not articulated very well.