Janic wrote:ME, not you in my place, I say and repeat that TA science intervenes ALWAYS after the battle to make balance sheets. All that science does is just confirm what centuries of field experimentation have discovered over their generations.
this is particularly stupid as an argument. Obviously, before the development of Western science, we already had knowledge, and obviously that the experiments that we had done for centuries had already produced knowledge of a scientific nature. The problem is that they were also mixed with magical practices and unfounded beliefs, and that by systematizing the scientific method and making it more rigorous, we got rid of these superstitions and made science much more effective.
Unless you claim that it is the experience acquired during centuries which proved that it was effective to fight against epidemics of plagues by making processions or by burning Jews, and that we had better come back to that than fighting with antibiotics?
. The funny thing about your attitude is your way of sanctifying a category of people in which you decide to blindly believe (homeopaths, those who think that GMOs or glyphosate are bad, climatologists alarmists), and to consider that another category is made only of rotten, corrupt, bad faith and non-credible people (those who think the opposite: allopaths, those who do not think that GMOs and glyphosate are really dangerous, climate-realistic. ..)
