> When people talk about flaws in science, they're often focusing on medical and life sciences, as Horton is. But that might simply be because these fields are

> When people talk about flaws in science, they're often focusing on medical and life sciences, as Horton is. But that might simply be because these fields are furthest along in auditing their own problems. Many of the structural problems in medical science could well apply to other fields, too. Pure FUD; those fields have unusually low levels of empiricism. Rule of thumb: as a science has greater trouble gathering enough data to settle disputes the scientists of that field become more and more like philosophers. They decide what's true based on arguments or personal feelings and in the worst cases they fabricate data to fill the vacuum. The problem is that the core element of science, that of rigorous experimentation, is missing from the process. The question is if a field is only able to follow the aesthetics of science but unable to adopt the rigor to what extent should we consider it science?