This was so obvious it should have been the null hypothesis. I don’t mean to be glib, but the limitations of science as it’s practiced can lead to less than ef

This was so obvious it should have been the null hypothesis. I don’t mean to be glib, but the limitations of science as it’s practiced can lead to less than effective solutions. For instance, why do we require double blind studies as the only way to “know” something scientifically? Parachutes have never been proven to be effective in a double blind study, after all. Intuition can be invaluable for protecting us from dangers we can’t prove rationally, or at least can’t prove rationally right now. It’s not always right, but neither is science. Except we live in a society where science is privileged over every other “way of knowing”. Sure, science updates false beliefs to reality over time, but until it does, people will be using “The Science” to call those people conspiracy theorists spreading misinformation. I think we as a society need to take a step back and question many bedrock assumptions underpinning our world and examine if they’re really serving us.