> Anecdotes are not science. But if enough people share an experience, sometimes there is more to the story.
Solely relying on anecdotes as evidence is not science, but they’re absolutely a critical part of it!
Solely relying on anecdotes as evidence is not science, but they’re absolutely a critical part of it!
Just because the science doesn't exist doesn't mean anecdotes are completely invalid.
> Science is expensive and moves slow.
I don't know if I agree that science is slow. Certainly scientific consensus is slow though. The churn of ideas at the forefronts of fields is rapid. In my field (machine learning/statistics) I'd say too rapid/short term incentive focused.
I really take umbrage at the idea that science is some purely objective, ideal process. It's messy, and scientists are opinionated and stubborn. Some of the most obstinate people I've met are tenured professors... They kind of have to be. It takes time for good ideas to weather the initial criticisms, persist through replication and testing, and to take hold.
It's not even the human parts that are flawed with science either.
Science is fundamentally flawed by nature because in science and therefore reality as you know it you cannot prove anything to be true. You can only falsify things in science. Proof is the domain of mathematics.