Jemisi wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 4:31 am
I take your point Kriterion, but Scientists have very often claimed to be 100% correct.
Jemisi, you know thats not true. Why would you peddle something that you know to be untrue?
Have you ever heard of the terms sensitivity or specificity? Those are statistical terms that basically describe how accurate a test is at measuring what its designed to measure.
Mathematically sensitivity is defined as the ratio of true positives (people who actually have COVID for example and test positive) to true positives + false negatives (the total number of people who actually have COVID).
Specificity is defined as the ratio of true negatives to true negatives (people who DO NOT have COVID and test negative) + false positives (total number of people who DO NOT have COVID)
Neither of these is ever 100%, so for example when a doctor tells you that the result of your coronary angiogram proves you've had a heart attack, he's at best 98 or 99% sure. But never 100% and no doctor worth his degree would say he's 100% correct all the time. Same goes for chemists, geneticists, astronomers, physicists, mathematicians, geologists, etc.
Which scientist? I don't even think most politicians claim to be 100% correct. In fact, even the Pope nowadays doesn't claim to be 100% correct (at least on non-religous matters) and he believes that God communicates with him directly or indirectly.
Scientists are constantly peer reviewed. And there work is continuously criticized, scrutinized, and often times disproved. So how would they claim to be 100% correct?