What's important is that people understand what science actually is. Often times people will point to an article that supports a conclusion, and then use that article as proof that that position is fact. This isn't how science works.
Science works through consensus, which we should all be familiar with here in the crypto world. Someone conducts a study and they submit their findings. Other scientists, independent of the original, replicate the study and see if they come to a similar conclusion. When this happens over and over again, we can get a strong idea of what the science is telling us. This is how we create scientific theories and laws and have reached the point in knowledge that we're currently at. When there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on a topic, it is foolish to brush that off.
When you're researching a topic on your own, look for this consensus. Don't just look for an article or two that support what you were looking for. This is confirmation bias, and you will be able to find it if you really want to. Look for the consensus, read the articles, try to understand the actual research within them. Don't just trust the conclusions you're reading, look at the actual data. If you find articles that are counter to the consensus, look at its data and methods, and look for studies that try to replicate their findings. See if there are studies that have specifically tested the counter study.
Be wary of media reports, from all sources (mainstream, independent, fringe, whatever), that points to one study as the basis for their report. People on all sides from all walks of life do this. For instance, whenever the topic of GMO safety comes up someone inevitably invokes the Serallini study that suggested GMO corn (I think it was) was leading to increased cancer. This single study is not science, its a piece of the puzzle. Looking at that single piece may not be indicative of the bigger picture.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: science is important. There are definitely people out there who look to corrupt it and use it for agendas, but its very very rare for this to be the consensus. Ignoring solid science because you didn't conduct the experiments yourself is going to lead you to the wrong conclusion far more often than not.
Sometimes it does. Most people reference papers that they haven't even read themselves or check for replication studies that back them up.
Not really. Many theories are based on giant jerk circles and gain momentum when people start peer-reviewing their own guys. Good example will be the selfish gene selection theory of Dawkins vs the group selection theory of Wilson. The latter is far more accurate but it is not as popular and this it remained on the shelf.
Sometimes 2-3 studies can take down entire volumes. Check for example how we came to understand that if we stop anthropogenic pollution to the point we are now, we might be even doing more harm than good due to the nature or carbon dioxide and the way it interacts with the ecosystems when it reaches high volumes. Matt Riddley presents overwhelming data for this yet he is brushed off because of "Earlier" consensus. Same applies for psychology and sociology. bullshit studies but due to the fact that so many people invested so much of their time and carreers —entire sectors are in stake, they keep pushing on and on. remember. science is first about business and making money, then everything else. This "Altruistic " stance of science needs to stop. they are humans like us. I went through grant proposal reviews myself and what I've seen was no different than corporate fiddling to get shit your way.
Yeap. But also the opposite is true. Whenever a new study comes that opposes the consensus, someone throws it in their face. Einstein went through the same crap before making through and beating the consensus.
Science is important but the opposite is true. Very few scientists are "honest". The reason is simple. The competition is massive and the money not so much. When there parameters are involved corruption easily sets in.
Let's be real. The people who do take the decisions don't bother to make the experiments. They just believe the "consensus" and move on. Heck often times they ignore it because of vested interests. It's all about the money.