This Is The One Key Difference Separating Good Science From Junk Science
“It’s extraordinarily tempting to imagine that the next great advance in science is just a breath away, and even more tempting to believe that you, yourself, are going to be the one who discovers it. That’s why you should be extra skeptical of grandiose claims when they’re made by a person who’s spent a considerable fraction of their life promoting one particular alternative to the mainstream. Science requires independent checks and verification of experiments; science requires the gathering of more and better data to strengthen and further validate preliminary conclusions; science requires that theories have predictive power that can be robustly tested.
You must not look at only the data that supports your conclusion; you must examine and consider the full suite of data. We might sometimes fool ourselves, but sound, reproducible science will always carry the day. As Feynman said, ‘reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.’”
How many of our best scientific theories will someday be superseded? Hopefully, most of them. As we gather more data, discover new mathematics, and become more adept at synthesizing ideas across a variety of disciplines, we’re bound to come up with better explanations for the Universe than we have today. We should strive to reproduce the successes that our current theories have, as well as to explain phenomena that cannot be explained at present, plus we should be able to derive new predictions that are testable in principle. Yet in science, it turns out that the very people who try to push the envelope forward are the most susceptible to the very biases that can lead to pseudoscientific conclusions.
There is a key difference separating good science from junk science, and it has to do with looking at all the evidence in an unbiased fashion. Humans may be able to be fooled, but nature will show us the way.