Again, you mislead. I have already pointed out to "infer" can mean to draw a conclusion based on evidence. You are selectively restricting the range of meanings of the word "infer" to suit your purposes - you know that "infer" can mean to draw a conclusion based on very sketchy grounds. And you, apparently, are trying to ride that horse as far as you can.
As I have pointed out, the specific wording of the Scientific American article is beside the point - it is simply a fact that you will not be able to refute that the consensus of experts is that "repeatability" is not necessary for something to be classified as legitimate science.
No. We do not expect Scientific American, nor should we, to present the case for a flat earth or a moon made of green cheese. You are taking a policy of Scientific American - to not present "woo" - and trying to spin it into a dark conspiracy to muffle alternative views. Scientific American is under no obligation, nor should they be, to present crackpot ideas.
I doubt this - the experts frequently warned people about possible side effects of the vaccine. You are, again, being rather unreasonable in your expectations. Since the scientific evidence favours taking the vaccine despite the side effects, you are not going to get a "You should not take the vaccine" article in a reputable publication like Scientific American.
It was not tested with the same rigour as for other vaccines. But there was a very good reason for that.
What scientists are those? Let's have some names. And what do you mean by "normal"? Scientists are not in the business of making moral pronouncements. And when they do, they are straying out of their lane, as it were. I can pretty much guarantee that you are inventing a mythical bunch of scientists who are making moral judgements about transgenderism.
Deeply misleading. The reality of what is going on, I suggest, is this - you insist that only a literalist reading of Scripture is correct, and you thereby, without a supporting argument, dismiss the large swath - in fact the majority I suggest, of Christians worldwide who accept evolution and very reasonably understand that the Bible was never intended by its authors to be taken literally in every word.
"you know that "infer"
can mean to draw a conclusion based on very sketchy grounds."
Well, then by your definition, couldn’t Intelligent Design be a viable alternative?
“As I have pointed out, the specific wording of the Scientific American article is beside the point –“
And I’ve tried to point out, it isn’t beside the point. It is deliberately stilting their argument. Any opposition to their belief structure is not publicized. I don’t expect Scientific American to present the moon being made of green cheese. However, there are legitimate scientists who firmly believe in Intelligent Design. They are treated with distain. They are never allow to publish because they believe there is a creator behind creation. And, some of them aren’t Christians, but the simply are looking at the evidence (oops, there’s that word).
And there is that word again…”conspiracy”. I knew this would come up. When one brings up what is obvious, this is the typical reaction. All one has to do is go to Scientific American and see what they have to say about Intelligent Design.
“I doubt this [sic Covid] - the experts
frequently warned people about possible side effects of the vaccine.”
Have there been any government studies done on the number and causes of deaths due to the Covid vaccine? Wouldn’t this be proper procedure under any vaccine on the market? Why was the government insistent that everyone take the drug to the extent that if you didn’t, you could lose your job?
“What scientists are those? Let's have some names.”
Well, here in the US we have lots of “scientists” in the CDC to name but a few (go to their website). I’m sure there is a similar Canadian organization that promotes this as well. And don’t tell me, “Well, these scientist have their field and we have ours.” If they can be wrong, than any scientist can be wrong. That is unless you agree with them.
“the majority I suggest, of Christians worldwide who accept evolution and very reasonably understand that the Bible was never intended by its authors to be taken literally in every word.”
This I think we both would agree with. That is why the church is where it is today. People don’t wish to believe the Bible is the literal Word of God given to us for teaching, reproof, and correction. Instead, there is reason and logic-not faith.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,