While Science is our best way of really knowing things, it's sad that most published research is wrong and unreproducible. The (financial) incentives are usually corrupted and you get what you incentivise. Veritasium made a video about this a while back as well, how even in the best case, ~1/3 of research claims will be statistically insignificant.
Your slightly off idea: they don't necessarily 'have the evidence' : they NOTICED sufficient evidence and/ or insight, to HAVE (reach) a more accurate conclusion than whatever crap was there before. 'Sufficient evidence' could come before, during, after, doesn't matter, not the same thing as the 'better / accurate' conclusion. As you note yourself, evidence collection can already be biased. So can conclusions. Don't trust either blindly. Not scrutinizing both may be fail.
'the scientific method' is a common misleading trope. There is no 'the method' as much as 'quite a number of good methodSS that together contribute towards verifiable, replicable results ' or whatever. Minor detail? No. Try always saying 'scientific methodSS': see if then you don't feel your underlying way of thinking and confidence in what you say improving.
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
While Science is our best way of really knowing things, it's sad that most published research is wrong and unreproducible.
The (financial) incentives are usually corrupted and you get what you incentivise.
Veritasium made a video about this a while back as well, how even in the best case, ~1/3 of research claims will be statistically insignificant.
x most o so much
AND in result end up with too much deadwood / distracting / trivial ideas, making it harder for more accurate and useful stuff to stand out and grow
Your slightly off idea: they don't necessarily 'have the evidence' : they NOTICED sufficient evidence and/ or insight, to HAVE (reach) a more accurate conclusion than whatever crap was there before. 'Sufficient evidence' could come before, during, after, doesn't matter, not the same thing as the 'better / accurate' conclusion. As you note yourself, evidence collection can already be biased. So can conclusions. Don't trust either blindly. Not scrutinizing both may be fail.
'the scientific method' is a common misleading trope. There is no 'the method' as much as 'quite a number of good methodSS that together contribute towards verifiable, replicable results ' or whatever.
Minor detail? No.
Try always saying 'scientific methodSS': see if then you don't feel your underlying way of thinking and confidence in what you say improving.