Chinese State Media turns on Antony Fauci for expressing openness to the Wuhan lab origin theory.

“I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we continue to find out to the best of our ability what happened," said the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a fact-checking symposium on May 11.

Curious. What do you think this course correction mechanism is? — Banno

Environmental Science, Solar Power, Low emission vehilces, Electric vehicles, and so on

That's a list of things science might work on. I asked what you thought the course correction mechanism might be.

In the post I talked about science being recursive; it refers back to itself. The course correction I have in mind is the way science looks very hard for errors in the descriptions it produces, and rectifies them over time. Scientists go out of their way to find problems in the science with which they are involved.

You seem to have something else in mind.

That's policy and politics, of course; it seems that Fauci has had a public change of mind; would that this happened more often, and without being seen as bad.

There was some mention of the issue upthread so I couldn’t resist posting it. (I’ve never felt that Fauci was anything other than competent and professional.)

The course correction I have in mind is the way science looks very hard for errors in the descriptions it produces, and rectifies them over time. — Banno

I can think of some obvious examples where this would never occur with the current understanding of science. One is multiverse and many worlds nonsense. The other is, whether evolution develops to some end, like higher awareness. Both those question are beyond the scope of science, but involve issues contested by scientists. And I can’t see any way they could be subject to correction or even investigation from within the current paradigmatic views of science. They’re where current science bleeds into crap metaphysics, in my opinion.

Understood.

I went looking for mention of this in the English language Chinese news - found none, of course.

I'm more in mind of the detail found in the minutia of academic papers. Most scientists are more bottle washer than Nobel Laureate.

Actually I'm overall optimistic about science proper. It's more the popular effects on culture that bothers me. Scientism. I think we agree on that.

That's a list of things science might work on. I asked what you thought the course correction mechanism might be.

In the post I talked about science being recursive; it refers back to itself. The course correction I have in mind is the way science looks very hard for errors in the descriptions it produces, and rectifies them over time. Scientists go out of their way to find problems in the science with which they are involved.

You seem to have something else in mind. — Banno

It seems we were talking about two entirely different issues. What I had in mind was how many scientific achievements (discoveries/inventions) seem to have side-effects, you know, harmful consequences like diseases and environmental damage and how these can be offset by nothing else but taking a scientific approach to these problems. The bad news is science causes problems, big and small; the good news is only science can solve them. That sums up what I meant by course-correction mechanisms that are part and parcel of the scientific enterprise.

As for how science improves its descriptions of reality, all I can say is there is constant pressure being exerted on any scientific description of reality (hypotheses and theories) that takes the form of experiments that serve a dual purpose, one to confirm and the other to disprove a given hypothesis/theory. This confirm/disprove cycle defines the scientific spirit and with it science asymptotically approaches the truth. This is course-correction at its best in my humble opinion.

Although I have to add something to what i wrote above, I think I was being ingratiating. I do seriously think that science as currently construed could lead us all enormously astray because of not being moored in the fundamental and felt reality of human existence.

:up:

I don't agree with the details of the method, but I will agree with the conclusion.

the fundamental and felt reality of human existence. — Wayfarer

...whatever that is.

Yep, science does bad things. But it does much more good than bad.

What it means is that it is perfectly feasible for science to generate delusions as easily as to discover truths. There might be widely-entertained scientific theories, of the kind I’ve already mentioned, that have no actual basis in reality, nor any scientific means of demonstrating their falsehood. And considering both the power and prestige of science in the modern world, they may yet present mortal threats to humanity.

What it means is that it is perfectly feasible for science to generate delusions as easily as to discover truths. — Wayfarer

Well, no; that's not what one sees. Planes fly. Computers compute. Engines provide power.

The stuff works.

And it works more reliably than virgin sacrifices or praying to the Saints.

Now if you can't agree to that, there's not much more can be said.

Always funny when someone reduces religion to virgin sacrifices. Making a strawman for his own complacency and anxiety about religion.
News flash; Religion ain't going away.
News flash 2; Many scientists are religious.
News flash 3; science to many people doesn't offer adequate answers to life. @Banno

Quality stuff. I stand corrected.

I don't agree with the details of the method, but I will agree with the conclusion. — Banno

:up: It's just one way of looking at science. There definitely are other and better perspectives around.

@Banno All true news. Not your fake stuff. And well above your pay grade.

Yeah, you are brilliant. So articulate, your arguments suffuse with wisdom.

@Banno Its a shame you don't get it though!

Oh, I couldn't hope to understand you entirely; I must content myself to admire what little I do grasp.

@Banno Voyeur.

I like to watch.


(Being There reference...anyone? Peter Sellers?)

@Banno Go tell your wife mate.

Goodness...She already knows.

It's a brilliant film, about a simple-minded man who accidentally works his way up to being a presidential candidate.

It is something to celebrate. — Banno

(y)

Also some of the tracking, using old methods (back to the 1800s?) and new tech.
Learning more about spreading, now including some focus on aerosols.

• https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-embracing-the-science-on-airborne-transmission-is-key-to-preventing/
• https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210511123622.htm

it's important stuff. Small, but vital.

Most scientists are more bottle washer than Nobel Laureate. — Banno

Oh, I think I had it right.

See your company above. — Banno

Of course you would think that!

In any case they are not my company, but yours, since this is your thread.

BTW I think you are overly certain about the efficacy and safety of the vaccines.I am not claiming that they are not efficacious or safe, just that it is way too early to tell, and that there is way too much vested interest behind the official narrative to justify any attitude but caution.

The stuff works.

And it works more reliably than virgin sacrifices or praying to the Saints. — Banno

They're not the only two alternatives, but I'll let it go.

//edit// what I mean to say is that science is no gaurantor of wisdom. It is wise to apply the scientific method, but it is not always applied wisely, and wisdom is not something intrinsic to it.