The scientific method enables us to rigorously build models. But it takes effort, so the model only expands in the directions where a person chooses to the do

The scientific method enables us to rigorously build models. But it takes effort, so the model only expands in the directions where a person chooses to the do that work. Scientific models are a communal human artefact, flawed with the bias and inattention of those that built them. The is a lot we know about the world, from history, from our experience, that we are not able to express with enough rigor to include them in a scientific model. So we can be confident that our scientific understanding of any new compound, will not gives us a complete understanding of the impact of that compound in the world. From history we have a partial map of our ignorance. We know from past experience that there are realms of unknown - ecological effects, decomposition products, birth defects, health impacts - associated with new products. We know there is a very big difference between safe and no known adverse impacts Rather than an alternative to science, we need a more vigorous meta model, better appreciation of where the model ends, and a better model for how we should act given our ignorance. I don't think we lack the ability to do this, it's a matter of will and power.