Yes, but why is this invention of a Scottish statistician accepted and established instead of being mocked for what it truly amounts to?

And what it truly amounts to is the process of faking rationality by going through a series of scripted motions that appear to be the essence of the spirit of science …

So if you're a "scientist" of a certain political bent, the kind of researcher who likes to know his or her outcomes prior to proving them, you can cherry-pick the "evidence" by claiming that everything that fits the curve you wish to show is valid evidence and that everything that doesn't is a certain SD's worth of nonsense or noise.

The "scientific method" is a kind of intellectual kangaroo court of ersatz ideas formed out of sentiments about ideologies of "how things should be" by model, supported by the political ambitions of those around the groups of "researchers" promoting this stuff.

They're ersatz precisely because they are meant to replace other ideas, and very frequently they are meant to replace better ideas which are for some reason or another too inconvenient to accept.

It's the engineers and the "applied scientists", rather than the "theoretical scientists", who have to try to apply some of these results and who are stuck with determining whether they're rubbish or not.

What's missed in this is that several would-be theoretical scientists wound up in that applied science camp precisely because of the games played by their politically motivated "colleagues" in the field.

And so the astrophysicists who suspected there'd be lower sunspot numbers in the 2020s and 2030s, who made noises to such effects in the 1980s, and that such a thing might lead to global cooling, along with all of the geophysicists who saw cycles of evidence supporting such a thing, what about them?

They got pushed out of being accepted as theorists.

It's much easier to support political hacks like DeGrasse who aren't very bright, but who could make good television presenter faces.

Put more simply, the "scientific method" gives you automated machinery grade "science" made out of whatever materials happen to be desirable, rather than what's best.

And because people desire these creations of "science" that are desirable, they eventually get what they deserve, but not directly: those who are mechanised by thought in this way are left behind by those who can grasp the actual operations of systems.

My single sentence take then: it takes commitment to be an engineer, because you have to accept that materials and situations may not work as intended, but being a scientist, especially in a populist or notional form, is essentially a know-nothing position.

And that's why my experience with "science" caused me to reject it in favour of engineering that proves itself by enduring, rather than claiming.

My preferred form of proof comes in the form of IK Brunel and those who followed, and I never miss a chance to walk across his bridge to look down at the A4 and the River Avon when I'm back in Bristol.

"Anthropogenic Global Climate change" is a BAD 'truth', because it does not have any facts backing it up. It is not replicable, and although it IS testable, such a test would have a very strong likelihood of destroying the observer, and thus render such a test meaningless. Engineers have tried repeatedly to create models for AGCC, but most such models fail in the past… there have been a few models that have managed to meet all the data points for past climate alterations, but every single one of those models IMMEDIATELY fail the moment they are tested against future events.

In other words, AGCC is every bit as spurious a 'Truth' as socialist Utopias, for exactly the same reason…. because every single test has failed. Civilizationally it also proves to be a bad 'truth' because, while scientists and tyrants are profiting from it, If it is a lie agreed to by everyone, it would actively destroy civilization. Every 'solution' involves thwarting human cultural, scientific, economic, and population growth.

And Again, Gamblers and insurance companies would bet on AGCC being a false 'truth'. And scientists do not care… It's getting them Tenure, it's making them rich, and winning them recognition. The ONLY way that the facts could be tested truly would be to STOP rewarding scientists for supporting this currently unverified 'truth', and encourage them to create a NEW Truth which has more factual connections.

And, Ironically, there are models of truths that exactly match all the available facts. Cyclical and solar climate change. But these two 'truths' are considered 'unscientific' because they do not make the wealthy wealthier, and thus do not reward the scientists presenting them, or the engineers testing them.

And the term for those who follow the 'truth' of cyclical or solar climate change is 'unscientific Climate Change deniers'.

A good "Truth", therefore, is to assume that EVERY "Truth" a scientist claims is automatically false. The more scientists agree, the more 'peer review' encourages the notion, the less likely it is to be supported by any facts.

And this truth is supported by both testing and many, many facts. The Gamblers and Actuarials would get rich off it… and do.

Example #1: Atheism. It is considered rational (for some reason) despite the reality that there is not a single FACT that supports that 'truth'. there is literally no possible way that any fact COULD support the non-existence of a deity, and thus this 'truth' is unproveable… and a 'truth' that has no circumstances under which it could be proven to work is not a 'Truth', not experimentally and not from a practical benefit standpoint.

The opposition to Atheism is, of course, Deism. Unlike Atheism, there is literally a universe of 'facts' to support it. Everything from the strong and weak nuclear forces and the way they interact to create matter, to the utter unlikelihood of the existence of carbon-based life, to even the unknown components of life itself… all are facts that strongly support the existence of a creative intelligence. More importantly, there IS a way that such a 'Truth' could be proven, in practice…. if said deity chose to make his existence known, that would make his existence a 'fact'.

That means that the 'Truth' of Deism is vastly more scientific, and fact-supported, than the 'Truth' of Atheism, which is utterly nonfactual and thus a lie, in exactly the same way that the 'Truth' of communism as utopia has an array of facts AGAINST it's success… continued testing has shown that in every instance of a civilization greater than the size of a small tribe, communism has failed and led to enormous human misery and death before finally creating it's own dissolution.

Philosophically, I think the entire concept of civilization is built upon lies, that most people can agree upon, and that keep people running smoothly alongside of each other.

Currency, the foundation of large scale civilization, is built upon the lie that bits of metal or paper are somehow EXACTLY THE SAME THING as a cartload of Grain, a bull, or the effort required to construct a barn.

Telling polite Lies is how gentlemen avoid murdering each other, far more than simple fear of punishment. Lying about having a social connection, lies that two people both agree to honor, is the foundation of honest and honorable behavior.

In a very real way, almost all communication other than directly relating known facts is filled with lies… even language itself, assigning meaning to symbols simply to communicate those symbols, is in essence a sort of lying. The word 'bear', for example, is not an actual bear… the word does not eat honey or threaten your life, but it is understood that it is a virtual term to communicate the concept of bear.

The thing is, the foundation of civilization involves telling lies that actively improve our ability to socially cooperate and are not proveably or proven utterly false. It's sort of like there are good lies and bad lies, the good lies are called 'truths' (not facts) and the bad lies are called 'untruths' or falsehoods'.

Engineers deal in facts. Because Facts will make a bridge collapse. Scientists don't care even the slightest about facts… Their interest is solely in providing 'Truths' because truths don't have any critical effects to them, by themselves… They are simply agreed-upon lies that may or may not have any facts attached to them. The Hard part is figuring out which 'Truths' are actually supported by facts, and which 'truths' are not supported by facts.

Scientists don't care. People don't die when a scientist's 'truths' are untrue. They are not the point of the spear for applying those 'Truths'. Engineers and cultural engineers are. All Scientists care about is Providing the sort of 'Truths' that get them tenure or money or fame.

It doesn't matter if a horde of other 'Truth' hunting scientists agree that their 'truth' sounds about right. Because in the end they know that what they are providing is honest-seeming lies until they are applied by someone in a position to link them to facts.

Lies are not the opposite of 'Truths', disproven 'Truths' are. Never trust a Scientist, because it's in his best interest to pretend that his Truths are facts.