Eh, I would count myself among those doubting a lot of experimental evidence. There is a lot of bad science around, and even good science is frequently used to

Eh, I would count myself among those doubting a lot of experimental evidence. There is a lot of bad science around, and even good science is frequently used to draw incorrect conclusions. If everyone uses 95% confidence as the standard then 5% are wrong. That's one in twenty, and that's the best case scenario. In reality there is a lot more that goes wrong, and there's a lot of people out there who don't give a shit about things like integrity. And it's not like all scientists are perfect geniuses, people make mistakes. There's also a lot of things that do get disproved, but nobody ever hears about that. Journals generally publish positive results, they don't publish negative results or failed replications. The whole for-profit scientific journal system seems pretty messed up to me. But this is what we have. So I think it's important that people understand the limitations of modern science. In many cases the science is solid - we know MRI machines work, they're used all over the world. So clearly the science behind them is solid. It gets more fuzzy when people publish studies like "People who eat dark chocolate get cancer less frequently" because I can guarantee you any study in that vein will have something like a 4% lower incidence of cancer in the chocolate group than the control but it'll technically be just above the arbitrary limit we use to determine statistical significance. That's the kind of science I consider pointless bullshit. It's not enough to be statistically significant, it has to be solid. It has to show a clear and indisputable effect, if it doesn't then the study is pointless. "It is possible that eating dark chocolate has some positive effect on your odds of getting cancer" is a completely useless result. We knew that before you started the fucking study.