…and there’s people who don’t. And then there’s people who try to improve science. Karl Popper was not a scientist, but a philosopher. He came up with the idea of falsifiability in the mid 1930’s, and it slowly was adopted by scientists. Today it is a bedrock test for all science. The point is that the scientific method is not set in stone. It is continually refined and improved upon even to this day. I have criticized peer review to much derision to those on this board who are essentially just science fanboys, but it’s not like I came up with those ideas myself. I’ve read plenty of scientists who complain about it, speak out about it’s faults, and how it can be improved.
There’s a separate error in that there’s a scientism approach by Democrats, especially as it relates to Big Pharma that says, “those science guys are real smart, I don’t understand what they’re saying so I will put my undying trust in them.”
The flaw in this thinking is that just because someone is more knowledgable on a subject than you are doesn’t mean they’re trustworthy, particularly when they have financial incentive to lie. So long as there is a financial incentive to lie then you should suspect their motives, particularly as it relates to your health.
The replication crisis alone should tell you that there’s something deeply wrong with science. There’s a Nobel Prize for new discoveries, but no prize for those who debunk and prove old ideas wrong.
There’s even scientists who will reject papers from getting published if they’re doing peer review for a journal so they can steal those ideas and keep them secret and use it as insider information so they have a competitive advantage. If they know something that others don’t then they can appear like a more brilliant scientist who’s ahead of the curve when in reality they just have access to insider information.