calling out EricKanevskiy, mmawhatever, and whoever else clutters this place with bs

calling out EricKanevskiy, mmawhatever, and whoever else clutters this place with bs

True. By definiton 'science' is always correct.
But the human perception of science is, as you mention, not always correct.
So how does science always being correct have any relevance to us at all since we have to go through hypothesis testing etc, to test our theories.

 

calling out EricKanevskiy, mmawhatever, and whoever else clutters this place with bs

Because scientific experiments can be conducted accurately, especially with large amounts of proper studies and advanced technology. Individual studies are just more prone to error.

 

calling out EricKanevskiy, mmawhatever, and whoever else clutters this place with bs

Not very fond of him.

however, Science > Anecdotal evidence

 

calling out EricKanevskiy, mmawhatever, and whoever else clutters this place with bs

You can get results by training less optimally / efficiently. Doesn't mean you should do it / listen to those who do it.

Just saying.

 

calling out EricKanevskiy, mmawhatever, and whoever else clutters this place with bs

You'd be surprised how often old theories need to be revised or altered to meet with findings from new technologies etc.
So assuming everything we theorise as scientific fact at this point in time is 100% fact would be unwise

 

calling out EricKanevskiy, mmawhatever, and whoever else clutters this place with bs

Yes, assuming everything we theorise as scientific fact at this point in time is 100% fact would be unwise.

Also, as a poster above me said, science>>>>>>>>>anecdotal evidence.

 

calling out EricKanevskiy, mmawhatever, and whoever else clutters this place with bs

In. This oughta be good.