'Trust the scientific method' begs the question: what is the scientific method? Duhem-Quine thesis and Feyerabend's criticisms suggest that Poppers falsificatio

'Trust the scientific method' begs the question: what is the scientific method? Duhem-Quine thesis and Feyerabend's criticisms suggest that Poppers falsificationism isn't actually useful in practice. I had the false idea drummed into me that the demarcation problem was solved, and this attitude leads to a lot of epistemological arrogance in many fields. Lakatos must be mentioned alongside Feyerabend. His 'Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes' is a solution to many of the problems people identify with scientific methods. It hasn't been applied to many fields because of the difficulty of converting existing research into explicit research programmes, but I think that soon digital tooling will make it possible. What we currently use to determine 'truth' ('scientific consensus') is closer to Kuhn's 'scientific paradigms' which is almost the complete opposite of nullius in verba. One example of the 'trust the science' is from Australia's chief scientist! Her proposed method to get people to 'trust in science' is to simply make sure scientists have 'integrity.' As if the only thing preventing scientists from making false claims is fraud. I think this attitude is common and fits with the article's criticism of state pressure damaging science. https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/news-and-media/trust-science https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/news-and-media/trust-scien...