Science Knows Nothing Or Science Knows Everything?

[Data]

Anthony Fauci has engaged in 14 hours of closed-door testimony before a House subcommittee on Covid. The chairman of that subcommittee, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), said that this would be "an opportunity for Dr. Fauci to explain his COVID-19 policy positions. His forthcoming, honest, and transparent testimony over the next two days is critical for improving our nation’s future public health responses."

But after one day of testimony, a frustrated Wenstrup reported: "What I’m most surprised about is how much he doesn’t recall, considering the severity of this event for the world, and that he was the face of the government’s response to COVID."

Over 100 times during the session Fauci used the "I do not recall" response. He must know something, he's a health official who left office with a net worth of $11.5 million.

That is an example of corrupted science. Corrupted by a man's authority.

Then, there is this artificial intelligence. Will it take over science and can it be corrupted?

[boatsnguitars]

I don't know about science, but I know right wing flame bait when I see it.

[The Barbarian]

I know about science, and I'll trust Dr. Fauci over some political hack in Congress.

Fauci called it remarkably well, considering how little we knew about the virus when the pandemic hit. I notice the congressman doesn't say what it is that Dr. Fauci doesn't recall. I'm pretty sure I know why he isn't going to tell us.

And I'm pretty sure why so much of the hearing was kept from the public.

[boatsnguitars]

I bet the questions were like, "exactly three years ago, how much creamer did you put in your coffee?"
We can be sure the Repubs weren't interested in truth, but the talking point that he said he couldn't remember..

[LittleNipper]

Science is but a tool. Show me a tool that knows something.

[brunumb]

Science is but a tool. Show me a tool that knows something.

HUH? Makes no sense, like show me a book that knows something.

[LittleNipper]

Science is but a tool. Show me a tool that knows something.

HUH? Makes no sense, like show me a book that knows something.

The title of this thread is, and I quote, "Science Knows Nothing Or Science Knows Everything?" So, my original comment was apropos. Science knows neither!

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to LittleNipper in post #7]

Science is both a method and a body of accumulated knowledge. I can only presume the OP was asking if the current accumulated knowledge we've discovered with science is 'everything or nothing'.

Right out of the gate the title is nonsensical no matter how you take it. As pointed out, a method can't "know" anything. If we assume the body of knowledge via science then of course it's neither nothing nor everything.

We do know that science is a method that works. The fact we are having this discussion using computers over a network is proof.

[Purple Knight]

The opposite of what everyone assumes.

If we assume science knows everything then it becomes "we must trust the experts" and the experts get complacent, don't have to have any knowledge, and science just sidles in as another word for faith.

If we assume science knows nothing, then it is not only hard on the scientist who must prove his findings down to the observational level of the layman, it also makes him little to no money which keeps greed and fakery out of the process.