> Defects escape, and the further they go the more hassle it is. As a practicing engineer, what is readily observable is that this is highly dependent on conte

> Defects escape, and the further they go the more hassle it is. As a practicing engineer, what is readily observable is that this is highly dependent on context. You see how hard it is to reach any consensus without rigorous measurement? How many more hours are needed to correct a defect down the line? How much does the context affect this? Is it possible to change the context such that the cost is the same? I can't understand people that are against having scientific knowledge, when time and time again we see that real advances are mostly made by acquiring that. Many times overthrowing what was "obvious". > I think this type of thought is the same as denying climate change. Climate change is one of the best examples of how having scientific knowledge is absolutely crucial, instead of guiding ourselves by what we experience.