Well, the very power of the scientific method *is* that they can
"change their mind tomorrow" so to speak. Facts-as-facts are
necessary in school but beyond school, less so. Within the
disciplines of the sciences, the variability in research
findings is a bonus. I love Google Scholar and live in it
sometimes. I'm not looking for hard facts because I don't have
to: I have no tests to pass and no newspaper headlines to write.
But what I'm looking for is a broad comprehension of the
strengths and limitations of each field, of each study, and
somewhere within the mix, come up with some plausible reasoning
to support whatever is necessary for me at the time, but all the
while knowing (gratefully so!) that the concept I'm leaning on
could vanish tomorrow, which keeps me nimble and alert and
looking for the deeper strengths within each, rather than
following the latest finding. "New study shows....[insert
something that overturns 'everything we knew before] has to be
taken with great skepticism. == The power is that both efforts
take place simultaneously. == You may be seeing an either/or
situation.* I'm speaking "both/and". == The various disciplines
of the sciences (there are many disciplines, many sciences) are
each viewing the world from their own point of view. Biology
sees what it sees and interprets through its lens. Physics sees
what it sees and interprets through its lens. Psychology sees
what it sees and interprets through its lens. Yet, none of them
have a singular lens in their own disciplines. There are
different opinions that vary TREMENDOUSLY within each
discipline. I'm friends with several theoretical physicists, as
well as a few going to school for it. They can fight like cats
and dogs over some things. Within psychology there's just as
much variety. Pick a discipline with a theoretical component to
it, and you'll find heated debates about nearly everything. One
exception MIGHT be chemistry, although there _is_ a limited
theoretical chemistry field out there, but it doesn't have a
strong voice because chemistry-as-is is extremely reliable and
powerful as it stands. Now, what's a general consensus among
scientists within a discipline? Which scientists? Which studies?
Who is using the studies and for what purpose? These are all
important and the facts necessary to use can change with the
needs of the user. This doesn't invalidate any of it. But,
outside of chemistry, I can't think of any field that isn't
bustling with opinion, debate, argument in some fashion. Yet at
the same time, some things appear to be sturdy and reliable.
Those are facts. They're practical. Science is a pragmatic
field. Use what works. Maybe next year something will work
better. Today's "This is the answer to why?" might not be as
effective as the answer in 10 years, 100 years. General
consensus is more of a wibbly wobbly thing. That's what makes it
powerful. Science can change. Yet when you find a general
consensus of sorts that's strong enough to support what you need
it for at the time, the chain of evidence is usually strong
enough to be pragmatic for its purposes. Science isn't scripture
nor is it law. It's its own thing. == Science is mitigated
certainties. It works. It is akin to a rope bridge. Do you trust
enough to cross? You apply what you know using the methodology
of proof that seems to work well and you cross. Can I build a
skyscraper on it? Probably not. But it is strong enough to
cross, good for its purposes. I apply the scientific method to
nearly everything yet not exclusively so either. It's more akin
to the engineering method [I have a chart somewhere that shows
the differences between them]. The methodology you're learning
is sound. My point is: it's not a weapon. ==
