I'm a biochemist and your posts are not offensive, but they are dismaying. It's the same reasoning behind detrimental viewpoints like antivaxxer, anti-GMO, and climate change denial, hence my question about how far you take this science skepticism. 

This thread is a great example of why I tend to not respect religion as anything more than modern mythology. The religious try to equate faith with facts or act like their belief somehow supercedes the scientific method, all while trying to devalue the contributions various facets of science have given to us as a population. And then they get offended or defensive when people call them on their complete inability to back up their claims.

Science and religion are NOT equivalent worldviews. They have no place being discussed in the same school of thought. One is science, one is philosophy or history AT BEST. The most validity any religion could or should ever be granted is its links to world history and the psychological effect it has on people, for better or for worse. No religion has earned the right to sit at the grown-ups table when discussions about the origin of the universe or true ethical morality or the genesis of life on this planet are brought up.

Stop trying to equate the two. They are not equal. You know who I'm talking to.

"Look it up yourself."- That's the same thing that ghost hunters, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, young earth creationists, and anti-vaxxers all tell me when pressed too. Your ideas aren't nearly as dumb as theirs, but they are just as false. 

You say to talk to people on the streets. Talking to people on the streets is not a good source of information. In fact after randomly googling things on the internet (without a good understanding of info lit), it is the best source of misinformation, and lies. In one post you caution people against believing the scientific consensus, and in another post you tell people to get their information from random passers-by on the streets. That is just contradictory. 

"As for the disease example; Yes, that's how science works. We didn't know about something, then made a discovery, and corrected ourselves. That is how science works." 

I'm not agreeing with you in the bolded above. I'm quoting you. Those are your words not mine.  Just to be clear, here is my response...

You've misunderstood what I'm saying. We didn't know about something =/= science told us the opposite. Before germ theory there were zero scientific theories for the cause of disease that withstood scientific testing and scrutiny. Science was telling us for centuries that all of our notions about disease and the workings of the body were dead wrong. When I say We didn't know something I mean that doctors at the time either ignored the scientific evidence for germ theory, or were flat out ignorant of it. I don't mean to say that science at one time advocated some other theory of disease. 

As a scientist then, I believe you must talk about science like this: "Some studies suggest", "There's a consensus about", "There are some researches that found out", "It's been proved", etc.

However, you know that's not how most people talk about science. They talk like "I saw a guy on the telly from Oxford saying that this can kill me, I'll stop having this now". That's the exactly attitude I'm against with and that's why food examples explain my point better.

I used points that are easily identifiable like food and the ice age. You know that the new ice age and global cooling were covers of magazines like Time and every grandfather of ours will remember those talks. As a scientist you can say that I can't take Time magazine to back any argument, but by taking it I mean that there were enough scientists and universities back then studying this (and evolving it to the current climate change thing) to the point that the subject become paper's covers and headlines. I'm not a scientists, but I've met scientists and university professors that remember all of this or have read about them. It's well known.

The food stuff, you also know that I don't need to source it, because its another easy to find out about topic. Every doctor in the 90's and before were saying to its patients that they should stop having butter and animal fat. Why? Because they had access to studies that told them so. Because it was indeed a consensus. My grandmother had a diet that banned eggs, animal fat and her doctor wanted her to have only margarine, because studies shown back then that it was the right way to protect her heart.

My mother on the other hand had a different experience. A few years ago her doctor encouraged her to use butter. He said that studies showed that butter is actually better than margarine and that all the fuss against butter, eggs and such was incorrect. She was surprised, she said "it's not what they used to tell on TV, they tell us to have those margarine that are good for the heart because the smart guys say so". More recent studies show that actually butter is better for the heart in reasonable levels. Some doctors now are even saying that we should stop having margarine entirely. The thing is pure gross chemistry stuff.

My father was a doctor and he never believed in such stuff. He kept having bacon, eggs and butter back then in the 80's and 90's even though every paper for doctors had articles saying that he should tell his patients to avoid animal fat or stop it entirely because it surely causes cholesterol according to many studies. He believed that vegetable fat was worse than animal, but he was called a "denier" or maybe an old bag doctor. He was right. Now there's all this "good animal cholesterol" thing.

Why bring sources to back this? Anyone in the 90's and 80's defending butter, milk and eggs was called nutter. In old films, from the sixties, you see kids getting home and going to the fridge to a have a good milk glass. The world got so against it to the point that films started changing milk to juice. Juice is another issue, tho. Doctors encouraged kids to have as much juice as they can, instead of milk. Today, doctors explain that more recent studies show that actually juice has too much sugar, a glass of natural orange juice can have much more sugar than a coke can and sugar is far worse than fat. Those are all doctors that read doctors' papers and studies and it all shows how researches having been changing a lot what we know about food. And this is all well known. This is basic pub chat. You can go to your GP and talk to them about it, if he's old enough in the profession, he knows. Asking me to bring sources to this is not necessary and saying that I'm stupid exactly because I brought the easy examples that everyone knows, is malice. All my examples are common knowledge and easily verifiable examples of how science was wrong and as you say "has to correct itself from time to time".

Read my last post above. You know that bringing up sources about my examples is nonsense. I'm not talking about rocket science here.

As I've gotten older I have pondered more and more about the philosophical aspects of life. Why are we here? What happens after you die? You get the point. I'm not religious by any means, and I would even go as to say that *certain* religious people actually bother me to some extent.

The truth of the matter is that no one knows the answers to these questions, and many religions seem to exist to try and answer them anyways. Some gain traction and end up with a population of people that accept their answers and try to spread the word. Maybe it made more sense a thousand years ago before we had some of the technology of today, but nowadays most people I know that identify themselves as "Catholic" don't actually believe in God, but will identify as such simply because they were raised in a Catholic family. In other words, religion is sort of a tradition that you are born into.

I was raised Catholic. I went to Sunday school maybe a dozen times, and to church maybe two dozen more. My daughter was baptized in a Catholic church. Even at a very young age I remember wondering to myself how people actually believe the stuff they are saying.

So yeah, I don't think anyone knows the meaning of life. I don't buy into any religion. It's frustrating not being able to know all the answers, but there are so many people who want to pretend like they do. Not everyone can be right. It's more likely that none of them are right. At the end of the day, there is a great possibility that when we die, everything just stops. I hope there is some sort of heaven, or afterlife, or reincarnation based on karma, but realistically, that seems more like a fantasy to me, and I don't really gain piece of mind from believing in a fantasy. Many do.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-coming-ice-age/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/time-magazine-cover-global-cooling/

I've met scientists and university professors that remember all of the global cooling topic.

I googled and I found a 1974 Time magazine with the Ice Age story:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601740624,00.html

Newsweek also ran stories

https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326

These quant tidbits come from a short article penned by Gwynne and printed on Page 64 of Newsweek’s April 28, 1975, issue. Titled “The Cooling World,” it argued that global temperatures were falling—and terrible consequences for food production were on the horizon. Meteorologists “are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” Gwynne wrote. “The resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

The story, and others like it, has been cited by people who like to challenge current climate science and global warming.

I may be wrong about being cover story. There was this story and others like it.

There was a consensus about global cooling. Yes there was. You know it. You can find little ridiculous details of something that I might have said that isn't 100% correct according to the "Cambridge/Oxford correct way of discussing stuff on Jesus Christ threads in a smart-ass way" or whatever, but everybody knows that the subject was enormous back then. If it was peer reviewed stuff or not, if I don't have the exact percentage of scientists that stated that according to the Library of the Congress I don't care. My point is still valid, people assume things like "scientists said that, so I should do it" and I'm saying that "no, you shouldn't believe in science blindly".

Now, you can keep looking for little small details that prove that I'm can't post like a scientist smart ass and so I'm completely wrong but, it doesn't matter:

Science is not always right. Science commit mistakes. Science says something is A and then it's B. Science has to correct themselves. Science doesn't know that certain things exist, even though they exist.

Now, what's next? Is it my "epistemologyical philosophical true scotsman of cartesian logical thinking" or whatever that is wrong?

preach

But if you're looking for something to be perfectly correct, doesn't the BIble have numerous inaccuracies? It can't. It's the same book from all those years ago. Meanwhile, science fixes those mistakes all the time through experimentation.