The firmness of my opinions is proportional to how much they have been tested.

Colds sometimes turn into coughs for me, so coughing makes my throat infections worse because it irritates the mucosa in the larynx. I have no evidence for this, but I've noticed that when I refuse to cough when I have a cold, I have fewer cough symptoms overall.

Speed limits are set below actual safe speeds for roads to drive local government revenue through speeding tickets.

Patrick's Law: If a comment thread on the internet is more than 7 replies deep, it's a slap-fight that's best avoided.

I am convinced that I will come down with cold/flu if I breath too much cold air. When I walk in the cold, I always wrap a scarf around my mouth and nose. If I don't, the cold air will give me a sore throat. That sore throat will act as a Petri dish for illness to develop and spread into my lungs or nose.

I know plenty of medical professionals and all of them tell me that that is not how it works, but I have a datum of proof. In my first year of university, I had a nasty, persistent respiratory infection during the late fall/early winter. To keep my throat warm while it was recovering, I started wearing a scarf and my illness went away quickly. After that, I started wrapping up whenever I was walking to class in the cold and never got sick again.

I am now used to wrapping my face in the cold and feel wrong without it. When I don't, it seems like I am more likely to come home with a scratchy throat. I can definitely say that many of my flus start in the throat (though it could just be that the first flu symptom I tend to notice is the sore throat).

Not answering directly the post, but something in line with it: I believe not all (maybe most of) knowledge is scientific, but that doesn't invalidate it. A lot of things can't be studied by the scientific method, but people intuitively understood and learned about it along the centuries.

This should be common sense, but society has gone crazy about considering only science as knowledge and now ignores valuable learnings that sometimes are more right then science itself.

This should not be confused with negating science (like global warming deniers): when you can study something by the scientific method normally you will get deeper and with less mistakes with it. But when you don't, you can still have knowledge by other methods

Probably belongs in unpopularopinion, but: Chicken is a waste of spices an herbs.
"But you gotta season it, man!!"
I know. Put the same seasoning on any other meat, and it'll immediately be a better dish.
Anything you can do with chicken can be done better with pork.

Ok, maybe not wings if you wanna be pedantic about it.

Hopefully none. I do hold some that you could call a-scientific, or something, because existing science has no impact either way. Like what kinds of foods are good or bad. Or morality.

So many... This will be downvoted :) Go guys!

• Our bodies immune systems are enough to fight covid unless we are unhealthy, most people therefore dont need to vaccinate.

• Nasa is definently not curious about actual human-like life in space and never intends to share any findings like that with the public. But its great for looking at rocks and microbes, things that will not change humanitys view of themselves as alone monkeys in space.

• There are other dimensions where non-physical spirits exists, like ghosts or dead family members. Some mediums are real and can communicate with them.

• Earth is a place where human souls go through a lot of challenges. How we treat others is meaningful and important for our souls.