>>>> You still don't have an infinite population and you still do not have an repeteable way to measure "life span".
I genuinely dont understand youe point here. Are you saying that 7B people arent enough to test every medical claim. Are you saying that because we cant determine with precision life span that we cant precisely understand medical results ?
>>>> the claim that there is a "natural" and "un natural" order of things is as unscientific as it gets.
The fallacy of misusing the naturalistic fallacy
According to the critique made, we should not claim that natural things are better than scientific experimentation. Yet, my original claim was not to use nature to derive a notion of how things "ought" to be organized.
Rather, as scientists, we respect nature for the extent of its experimentation. The high level of statistical significance given by a very large sample cannot be ignored.
Nature may not have arrived at the best solution to a problem we consider important, but there is reason to believe that it is smarter than our technology based only
on statistical significance.
The question about what kinds of systems work (as demonstrated by nature) is different than the question about what working systems ought to do.
We can take a lesson from nature —and time— about what kinds of
organizations (such as human vaccines, or viruses) are robust against, or even benefit from, shocks, and in that sense systems should be structured in ways that allow them to function.
Conversely, we cannot derive the structure of a functioning system from what we believe the outcomes ought to be.
>>>>> I am not going to expect anyone with a half brain to verify the health effects of mixing milk powder with and without a Bible below it,
See above. It is not the same claim. Being cautious about taking actions you dont fully understand; is not the same as believing you understand certain actions