> There are multiple evolving fields of science...

This seems more intended to persuade than inform, in that it is orthogonal to the point of contention.

> It's not a perfect process, but it's the best one we have to date.

Repeated claims of superiority do not grant superiority - they can certainly cause appearances to take on that form though.

> You get the best picture by reading papers, following the references in them, or the other way around, the papers that cited them.

Within science. I am not disputing that science is the superior methodology for problems spaces where it is superior - this is necessarily true, because it is a tautology.

>>> ...or rather some weird new science if it's required to explain things, but there is also no reason to speculate about it when it's not needed.

>> And yet, speculation (not realized as such) is extremely common, particularly among the fan base.

>> When religious people do this they get mocked relentlessly, it's an interesting double standard.

> I don't really see the double standard, because scientific research must be substantiated and falsifiable.

I think our wires must be crossed - I was complaining about speculation where it is not necessary (among scientists and their fanbase), not speculation within the scientific process.

> People still cheat, there is fraud, but there is a process to control it.

The quality of that process is a function of its performance. Memes to the contrary aside, that there is a replication "crisis" in science is old news.

> Individual volition can only do so much damage....

This excuse applies to everyone.

> ...the truth always ends up winning, even if it takes years...

Memes are not evidence.

> ...because the truth is irremovable. Even if we forget it we will keep rediscovering it.

This seems to assert that science discovers all truth - again, where's the evidence supporting the claim?

> This is the difference between a shaman and a doctor.

This is one difference, and the degree to which it is actually different varies per shaman and per doctor - information that you do not have access to.

Are doctors more structured and thorough than shamans? Surely.

Are doctors superior to shamans for all problems? I would like to see evidence if such a claim is made, implicitly or explicitly.

> The shaman takes your money and pretends to be doing something...

Here you DEMONSTRATE your lack of knowledge (and, the nature of what you consider "knowledge").

> ...the doctor works hard using tools, techniques and theories people worked hard on inventing and discovering.

TIL: there is zero incompetence among doctors.

And then there's this:

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_su...

"Analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S. Their figure, published May 3 in The BMJ, surpasses the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) third leading cause of death — respiratory disease, which kills close to 150,000 people per year."

> Truth pays dividends there, it can heal your sick child, because the truth is real power, not cultural power like a Shaman might have, but actual power against diseases, hunger, death itself one day.

Is "truth" what we're dealing with here today?

> I also don't think it's right to call it materialism, matter is just a small part of the picture, an important one as far as we are concerned, but it's only 5% of the Universe, and if you go deeper quantum physics is more fundamental and nothing about that is materialist.

"Materialist" has many meanings - in my case, I am using it to refer to people who deny metaphysics, or believe that materialist approaches are adequate to understand it (take your literally incorrect shaman example above as a half decent example).

> The normal, intuitive concepts of space and time or causality don't even affect it, because it is also responsible for those as well.

Yet another claim.

> And yet despite how disturbingly weird it is scientists can still deal with it, and find applications for it.

Is "deal with it" a scientific term? Regardless: what is its precise meaning, with respect to the context of this conversation?

> This year's Nobel Prize was given to people that made an entire quantum industry possible.

Impressive, but again: orthogonal to the point of contention.