I still want to say we shouldn't just turn our nose at "science".
100% the correct take. The Leftists want science to replace God; rather than allowing the Christian perspective room to breath; which is that science reveals God's creation, and in so doing, reveals something of the nature of God.
Personally, I believe in a predictable and rules-following Universe because I believe in a God that isn't capricious; but if there were no God, or if I believed in a god that were capricious (looking at you, Muslims), then all bets are off in terms of whether a thing tested today could be replicated tomorrow.
You just need to try to sort out the truth from the lies.
Absolutely.
You seem to be talking right past me. You are arguing something that the original OP in this comment chain never said, and which I specifically never defended. He said:
It is almost as if science can't predict crap about the future. They are pretty good at explaining the past, but have no idea how to correct for all the variables involved in predicting the future.
He's not talking about some controlled science experiment. He's talking about peering in to a crystal ball and predicting the future state of a complex system. And I support him in this assertion.
We can generally predict the behaviour of phenomena - as long as it's within certain constraints, as you correctly note, this is the foundation of the discipline of engineering, analysis of chemical reactions, and so on. But we can't predict the future; because to do so would require perfect knowledge of the state of the Universe (which we can never have) and the understanding necessary to analyse it in terms of causality, which we don't and can never have.
Do you know what the impact of the 1987 Montreal Accord was? Do you know that the social impact of the Montreal Accord was in terms of its impact on the perceptions of the more ...shall we say... 'malleable' members of society, and the rise of the Cult of Climate Change that followed? It was non-zero.
Excuse me, but I do.
I'm talking about the fundamentals of the way the Universe is actually wired up. You can't predict the future in any meaningful way; science tells us the exact opposite of "predict the future". As I specifically described: "the scientific method allows us to predict the outcome given a very specific and controlled set of circumstances". The only people making us "look like idiots" are the ones trying to tell people that 'science can predict the future'. It can't.
CFC's are bad too, so glad they are being phased out worldwide as well.
CFC's are literally heavier than air. You can pour out the contents of old compressors in to a bucket. The "Ozone Hole" was discovered entirely as-is in the late 70's. It was never measured prior, and exists now essentially unchanged from how it was when it was found. The whole Ozone Hole Crisis was a dry-run for the Climate Change Crisis.
The ozone hole is caused by the big fucking volcano that pumps out superheated chlorine gas in to the atmosphere in that spot, along with a number of other circumstantial factors relating to airflow, sunlight hours, and so on. You might have heard of Mount Erebus.
No, the scientific method allows us to predict the outcome given a very specific and controlled set of circumstances. It doesn't allow us 'predict the future' in any meaningful sense of the phrase.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle means we can never reach a stage of perfect prediction, because we can never simultaneously know all the things that we'd need to know to predict it.
Finally, the entire scientific method is built on the non-falsifiable hypothesis that the underpinning mechanisms of the Universe are, and will remain, predictable.
S A V A G E