Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you need studies to give you permission to do something? Particularly when science is facing a crisis of reproducibility, I would not put so much emphasis on them. It’s really no different than the religious dogma of previous centuries, where scientists act as priests, and scientific studies as scripture.
>Why do you need studies to give you permission to do something? No one said that. >Particularly when science is facing a crisis of reproducibility, I would not put so much emphasis on them Err.. science is facing a crisis of reproducibility? Excuse me? If you can't reproduce something- that means you haven't proved it scientifically, thus the science is telling you that it can't tell you anything. >It’s really no di…
Dogma is dogma, no matter the origin. Many people who are today dogmatic about the scientific method, would be the same people that would be dogmatic about religion in the 16th century. At the end of the day it is merely one lens of looking at reality, not the only lens. This isn't even touching on the fact that the scientific method is riddled with issues and ill equipped to tackle certain problems. Paul Feyerabend explores this nuanced issue in Against Method, which I recommend reading if you ever want to take off the pro-scientific method spectacles [3]
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/6422183... [2] https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on... [3] https://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Paul-Feyerabend/dp/184...