>> Yes, but this means existing studies can't be relied on… > Exactly my point with this line of thinking: It’s used to argue that you can’t rely on any studie

>> Yes, but this means existing studies can't be relied on… > Exactly my point with this line of thinking: It’s used to argue that you can’t rely on any studies, therefore it becomes a free license to reject everything and inject your own desired conclusions. The "therefore" section of your comment is your own interpretation, not the reality of a society steered by science. It's why uneducated people believe in Bigfoot. We can't disprove Bigfoot, therefore he exists. It makes a certain kind of pre-modern sense, but it fails to take scientific discipline into account. I'm tempted to call it the Avi Loeb version of cosmology -- we can't disprove the alien provenance of a small distant glowing object, therefore it's an alien craft. And Loeb has a Harvard position on his side -- for those who believe in scientific authority. When confronted by this kind of thinking, I'm reminded of Richard Feynman's remark: "Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion." And finally, it's why psychology has the reputation it does -- many psychologists have no hesitation about leaping ahead of the evidence.