> So is the scientist giving the best information here? Whatever the case, the scientist is not "only paying lip service to the scientific method" in such a sc

> So is the scientist giving the best information here? Whatever the case, the scientist is not "only paying lip service to the scientific method" in such a scenario. The scientist set out to answer a question, and they answered it. If you draw other conclusions from their work, it might be their fault, but only if they claimed that they were answering more than they actually did answer. And in practice, scientists do evaluate fasting and such, because they're not just in it for the money. I mean, the very article corresponding to this comment section says: > There has been over 100 years of research looking at the role of calorie restriction in relation to the possibility of prolonging life. But of course, you can come up with other examples of scientists thinking up false dichotomies, so that's neither here nor there. All I want to say is that it's really obvious that scientists don't evaluate all the options, that they're often biased, and that they often commit errors of logic. But concluding from this that "the only information that has a possibility of being true, IMO, is anecdotal evidence" is downright insane. > No one is checking that the foundations are as solid as they believe! You act like you're an expert on the scientific process and how scientists spend their time, but I very much doubt you do. Anyway, I'm done here, talking to you isn't exactly fun or eye-opening.