This doesn't make much sense to me. Science and the scientific method is a specific way of acquiring knowledge, why would a method used to acquire knowledge be

This doesn't make much sense to me. Science and the scientific method is a specific way of acquiring knowledge, why would a method used to acquire knowledge be interested in other ways of acquiring knowledge. Scientific knowledge tends to be regarded highly when it comes to many subjects because of the rigourous way it must be acquired and tested. I'm not saying this is the best example of a study i've ever read, but the scientific method as we use it today was developed over a long time and is used because as of right now, this is the best way we've found to acquire useful knowledge. Is it the best? Maybe, maybe not. Has it given humanity consistently better and more accurate knowledge than other methods throughout history....personally i'd be willing to say yes. Doing research, writing and presenting a paper don't exist to make science a special club. They're written the way they are to ensure all methodologies and results are clearly laid out and given, allowing others to repeat the process, the discussion giving the author's conclusion is kept separate from the rest. The peer review system, while definitely flawed and full of problems, exists to ensure submitted papers followed reasonable methodologies and that the reported results and conclusions make sense..... Now....that's the way it's supposed to be. In my experience, science isn't the problem it's scientists. Personally, the biggest problem I noticed, at least among biologists is worked with, was emotional attachment to personal theories and other things to the point where inconsistent or straight up contradictory data would be ignored or resampled until the desired results were found. Money was also a pretty big problem especially when it comes to grants and continued funding. Again, inconsistent or contradictory data would be ignored to ensure the desired results and continued funding. Proposals would need to provide economic justification for funding. So there had to be an economically viable reason to do the study. And honestly, a lot of petty arguments and bullshit between scientists over the small amounts of funding available for different projects. Science itself is great, the institutions we've built up around them not so much. They've corrupted it pretty heavily to the point where depending on who's funding a study you can already give a pretty good guess as to what the biases will be.