Right, the scientific method is a tool used to examine truth in a way that can be replicated. Findings may or may not be generalizable to a particular group or individual. It’s an approximation of truth where probabilities weight in certain direction of association but there are often many contextual and confounding variables that need to be considered when interpreting the outcomes of a scientific study.
Can they qualify anti science? Because "trust the people who say what science is to conduct science properly" is antithetical to the scientific method. The scientific method should be used to validate all research. To examine and criticize existing work and conclusions, learn how one can validate it, or at least move the validation to someone who is trustworthy to the individuals directly impacted by research & medicine. nostr:nprofile1qqspxw8hwq2356rcjcwe5vt3rmlpsdveq49ptkfncfu8vgu7sznlqxcpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7hvzeku nostr:nprofile1qqs06hur0durup4gswajdrter25f5zhd7vpf9xnu34k8znh877mzngspzamhxue69uhhxetpwf3kstnwdaejuar0v3shjtccw5l99
Discussion
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124&type=printable
This is a brilliant paper that highlights some major downfalls of empirical research today. Building on the discussion of this paper what is also needed is wider discourse of the meaning of the findings of studies. For example, how can peer-view happen in a more transparent way? How can various stakeholder groups, researchers and the public etc. discuss research findings more objectively?