@gg1gamer: So what are you trying to tell us?
It's not like that's something new or unknown. What would you suggest to avoid such problems? Do you think there is a better system? Or are you just pointing out the obvious?
Anyway, correlation =/= causation, that's probably the most often made mistake, mostly by non-scientists though
Hello, welcome to flat earth society, here we have people that doubt the existence of atomic bombs. I made a nice little post for them explaining that shit to them and you know what they said? I'm not interested in the facts. (might have been phrased differently).
What i've learned in my time here is that nothing is obvious to some people around here.
So what i'm trying to tell: exactly what i've told.
What I learn from the OP is that an engineer is not a scientist. It's a completely different subculture.
Very true, but not related to this. I was a scientist before i became an engineer. Simplest way i can put it: scientists gather knowledge, engineers apply this knowledge.
Meaning that scientists are looking for evidence, proof. Engineers aren't interested in this, it just has to work.
The problem is, you skipped the first step of the SM, observation. The other issue is current mainstream science and their religious beliefs system, materialism, and the creation of hypothesis without observation. They make grandiose claims, then try to make nature fit that paradigm. So maybe the real issue is, you see the contradiction, but don't truly understand why.
Case in point: paleontology. Paleontology is scientific-fiction, not science by the SM. Because it is so loose in interpretation, it can easily be used to support random spontaneous evolution, so it is accepted as real science.
Oh i skipped quite a few steps. Yes observation is very important. Too bad that we can't observe certain stuff without relying on other scientists to have done their job right.
"They make grandiose claims, then try to make nature fit that paradigm."
*cough* "Even scientists have to make a living. So they search for sponsors to be able to do their research. And those sponsors want to see results and not tomorrow, no no they want results yesterday. So they force scientists to rush their research. And scientist might hide some data that would contradict the outcome that would be favourable for the sponsor (fraud by the way)."*cough*
Hypothesis and theories are allowed to have something called a "scope" or "limits".
In the example of the first post; how can you define such a limit if you don't know about the existence of friction?