Believing in experts

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2023, 05:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: In my opinion honey would be good science. Effective and repeatable. It may not have arisen through what we now know as the scientific method, but it was proven time and again. That was the best science.

Failed science isn’t bad science, it’s a process. It is part of the journey. In your leukemia example I do want the best science available because it is provable and repeatable. I don’t have an issue with the term “best science available “ when it actually is. Educated guesses aren’t science, and aren’t the best science available because it’s not science. Tell us this is an educated guess based on past experience. Or call it experimental as they do with clinical trials. The best science available is whatever is provable and repeatable. Anything beyond that may be part of the scientific process, but no more. A lot of people should probably take down their pretentious “I believe in science” yard signs.

The honey example was 100% the scientific method, just not in the formal way. Some time, some hominid had to have accidentally got honey on a wound and discovered that it behaved differently than before. Then, they tried it again. They observed that there was a difference, to they hypothesized that honey had these properties. Then, they sought to replicate the results. Eventually, this knowledge was passed on.

What we call the scientific method and how we deploy it in research is just a formalized way of doing what our ancestors have been doing since the beginning. We just write it down, now.