On science and Uber and what not

Just now completed a few chores in preparation for work.  It is during this time that I have some thoughts, but afterwards, they can be easily lost and never posted.  Sometimes, I wish I had a way to save a thought before it vanishes.

Well, here are a few thoughts:

• I had a teacher who once defined a scientist as a "seeker of truth".  If that's true, then you aren't required to have a document that says that you are a scientist.  If you seek truth, you are a scientist.  Anybody can be a scientist, then.
• However, there is this demand for standards, so the government steps in and decides who can be a scientist or not.  If it isn't the government, then somebody of eminence gets to decide.  This authority then defines who is a scientist or not, as opposed to just anybody being a scientist.
• If that person of eminence gets to decide who is a scientist or not, then they have power of the truth ( as it is known and accepted , not necessarily what it really is. )
• In other words, a certification of authority doesn't guarantee anything, especially the truth.  Since that certification can be forged, altered, or in some way made for someone who isn't truly qualified to give an opinion on a subject.

This is another reason why I dispute "climate science".  The government gets to decide who is a qualified scientist who can tell us if there is any "global warming" or not.  Meanwhile, I, as non recognized scientist, can see and tell things as they are, but not be recognized as having anything worthwhile to add to the discussion.  I can tell you that the sea isn't rising on Galveston Island, which is only an hour away from my home, and hasn't risen any in the last 50 years.  Anybody can make such an observation, and no one really needs a certified scientist to tell them that the sea is rising or not.  You can see that for yourself.  You can think and see and everything and not have someone tell you what is and what isn't.

The above example is only one in many ways that you can dispute "climate science" without having being a "recognized authority" on the subject.  But the recognized authorities want you to believe them and not your own senses and brains.

Then they bring in the Pope, the "ultimate" religious authority to lecture us about science.  Didn't they do this during Galileo's time?  I suppose Galileo was a "gravity" denier.  He was put under house arrest for disputing the "settled science" of that day, which happened to wrong, as Galileo was right.

Real science can be rather costly for an individual.  Let's say you want to experiment on a drug.  You can experiment on YOURSELF, but that may get you killed.  It's kinda like the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  Dr. Jekyll wanted an elixir that would help him become more assertive  and he ended up succeeding, but at a terrible price.  Maybe a fifth of whiskey would have been safer.

I wanted to know about Uber, and now have conducted part of an experiment.  Like Dr. Jekyl, I may end feeling very sorry I did.  But why did I do it?

I am a scientist, I suppose.  I wanted to KNOW.