Just because transmissibility-reduction-effectiveness wasn't studied before the (emergency use authorization) release of the vaccine doesn't mean that it wasn't also (somewhat) effective at doing that, but just became known after-the-fact because of a much larger "study" (the general population).
The point of the pre-release studies was to determine how effective it was at preventing severe-disease and hospitalization, and those were the numbers evaluated for the EUA decision (at least in USA)
I don't know who this politician is, but seems to be trying hard to create scandal and controversy. And sure, he did uncover a lie by government officials, sort of (preventing yourself from getting sick to the point of shedding less virus does help others around you too), if they made those statements and marketing materials before such data existed to back it up.
Maybe pfizer did make those claims before the EU rollout? That wasn't shown or discussed in this video, even though it would have helped his argument by presenting that.

Certainly I agree that the phrase "speed of science" is content-less, because the scientific method doesn't define speed. The time-to-marketable-solution might be a better measurement, and that largely depends on how much money you throw at a problem.

You know, without actually looking at the things he speaks about, I've found thunderfoot to be a downer. I've had acquaintances like him, very toxic.

I'm sure he's following the scientific method, having a critical eye, and exposing charlatans that dearly need the light of day shone on their taints, but imagine him in person.

I'm just saying I like being clear/careful to distinguish between emotional, moral and factual argumentation.

If the subject were instead vaccinations, you could as easily have a child pitching an anti-vax message and pleading with the world to listen to the 'facts' that they present. It might make people more willing to listen, but it should NOT change our assessment of the accuracy of the facts.

Supplanting argument from emotion, authority and various other subjective/flawed approaches is THE defining advantage of the scientific method. Blurring that line is damaging, regardless of the intentions or goals.

Being able to articulate what the scientific method is, and unambiguously, unfailingly supporting it across the board should be a litmus test for politicians.
Today, I expect >1/2 don't even know what a litmus test is.

If you can't pass a 7th grade biology class, can't tell an ion from a prion, or can't tell the difference between verified scientific fact and religious dogma, that should disqualify you from any form of leadership, from the pta to the presidency. Ruling from dogmatic ignorance is always a recipe for disaster.

The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

Blah blah Scientific Method blah blah mathematics blah blah physics blah blah evidence-based deduction vs. shit someone made up whole-cloth that people believe in because it makes them feel better about themselves blah blah etc.

Congratulations! Your video, 10000 more years of the scientific method, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 31 Badge!

10000 more years of the scientific method has been added as a related post - related requested by mxxcon on that post.

Your video, 10000 more years of the scientific method, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"Let me just get this straight, your saying that we should organize our society along the lines of the lobster"

NOPE, NOPE, I can't do it anymore... I stuck it out until 27:13 but that moronic question puts it over the top.

So let me get this straight Mrs. Interviewer, you have no concept of the scientific method and just want to push your ideals and emotions on this guy (write or wrong that he may be)?

I should have just watched the fireplace channel for half an hour... I certainly would have come out smarter after this show of abysmal "journalism".

Yes, I fully understand his intended point. And as I put forth, it's wrong. Using the scientific method you very well may not come to the same main theories today. We may end behind, develop something parallel to, or skip them to a more advanced point entirely. All because science never shows a truth. It shows a human's best interpretation of fleeting data that is quickly shown to be "wrong" by the next set of data (which is "less wrong").

I think the idea is the scientific method will, over time, after a complete loss of the knowledge gained, come to the same main theories we have today. Religion, on the other hand has little chance to be remotely similar to its present form without humans brute-forcing its tenets and stories. Much like the religion of the Mayans won't spontaneously evolve again without (the science of) archeology.

No sir, Bill starts with the belief that the scientific method is the best method for finding fact....much better than fables older than they claim the earth is. His belief has verifiable evidence you can see and reproduce, Ham's has impossible fables about magic no one alive has ever witnessed told third hand or more, compiled and edited by a ruler with the sole goal being solidifying political control.

It seems he's forgotten his religious responsibility to care for the planet and creation.

Why would it matter if you're going to die? Because some people find things outside themselves to be important, and care what happens to those that come after them...clearly they don't matter a whit to Mr Ham after he's moved on.

It's crazy to have an intellectual discussion with someone that refuses to utilize their intellect.

Tree rings aren't evidence? But fables are? WTF, man?

How would Ham prove 100% that his insane beliefs are correct? He clearly can't.

The problem with religion, it can't ever admit it's wrong at all, so it can't adapt to new information. When it's proven wrong, they MUST deny the proof, leading to denial of fact and science, leading to idiots like this.

Well, you should be boycotting all of science by that logic, not just climate science, because it's all built on the same scientific method. Fallible, but self correcting.