On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:25 -0600, Graham > wrote:

>On 2021-06-01 11:03 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2021-06-01 12:30 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2021 9:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>>> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used
>>>> to involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated.
>>>> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where
>>>> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific
>>>> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies.
>>>> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have
>>>> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have
>>>> touched.* A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and
>>>> anyone who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science.
>>>> I realize that science **gets more involved over time,* but this
>>>> thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science.
>>>
>>> Masks are just common sense.* It is a virus and easily spread from
>>> excretions from the mouth.
>>>
>>> If you are standing naked and someone pees on you, you get wet
>>>
>>> If you have pants on and someone pees on you, there is a little
>>> protection.
>>>
>>> If you are both wearing pants and someone tries to pee on you, he gets
>>> wet, you don't.
>>
>> I am not arguing for or against masks. I am objecting to the put down
>> "follow the science" when the sciences keeps changing.
>
>What you see as changing is better defined as developing.
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.