THE PROBLEM IS NOT SCIENCE PER SE, IT IS LAW First: I think that if you can’t de

THE PROBLEM IS NOT SCIENCE PER SE, IT IS LAW

First: I think that if you can’t define the term ‘science’ that you can’t make claims about who understands what. And I am fairly certain that very few people can define science in scientific terms so to speak. So there is a very great difference between the definition of science that one warranties and a definition that one does not.

Second: there is a difference between (a) science that identifies a pattern, or opportunity, and science that defines limits of the pattern or opportunity, (b) science that it is possible to draw deductions from, and science that it is not. (c) science that one warranties, and science one does not.

Third: there is a difference between policy one warranties and policy one does not.

The difference between science and non-science is only testable by warranty.

How would science and policy differ if one’s speech and policy were involuntarily warrantied, just as products(property) and services(actions) are involuntarily warrantied?

Is information(science) not a market goods? Is there some special pleading you think that science is worthy of? (no)

The problem is not the definition of science. the problem is lack of warranty of due diligence, and lack of involuntary warranty against falsehood, immorality, and harm.

The problem is not science – it is law.