What is sometimes called Evidence based medicine is not necessarily the same as medicine based on scientific principles or scientific models
Evidence based medicine can go contrary to your personal observations and sometimes follows what Robert Jay Lifton called
Doctrine Over Person
In his book on Totalitarianism
A scientific model may have been tested for multiple generations than predictions maybe made as to the effects of a treatment based on the model
But the latest peer review...
When medicine first started "outliers" were looked at as being different for some reason, and often as evidence of a different disease. Now the disease is presumed "known" and outliers are just placebo effects
"problem with scientific model is that it no longer looks for difference" NO, not at all., It seeks the truth through proposed theory, AND THEN TESTS IT AS IF IT WAS WRONG TO DISPROVE IT. There is NOTHING wrong with that. The ONLY problem is politics, power, church, state, USE that model, and SILENCE decent if it doesn't work for them. You are describing "scientific publications" and I strongly suggest you look at who owns them. I spent until I was 30 years old "studying in universities" in the 90s.. I know how "scientists" (in academics) "tune there research to get funding, and don't bring up conflicting evidence" because of funding risks. The problem is, SCIENCE and scientists can NOT survive cancel culture and present facts.
Point in fact.... Kary Mullis.
"Science" was compromised decades ago, (global warming), it's only now when people see culture, media, everything, was compromised the go "science too now" (especially post-Covid). Trust me, they took down the truth in scientific publications DECADES ago... It was one of the first steps (Aaron Swartz knew that, and died for it)
"Modern science"
Definition of terms. "Modern Science" is not science. You have to go back to the 1800's and see what "science" is.
So, maybe I do agree, our terms don't? I will go this far.. "modern science is NOT real science" which is DEFINED BY the SCIENTIFC METHOD.
Propose theory, test ALL ways it can;t be.. of you don't have real proof.
My definition of science is:
Sir Francis Bacon in his 1620 work Novum Organum, which emphasized inductive reasoning.
Yours is scientific publications and news reports of "modern science."
I agree, they are NOT the same thing.
I would suggest that error analysis and statistical significance testing are not always the same thing
I do not have a problem with error analysis
But I think that in science people focused on models based on Algebra, Triginonetry and Calculus
In the newso called evidence based approach they started neglecting Algebra, Trigonometry and Calculus in their model and actually had no model to make predictions at all
They just tested for statistical significance
To not consider evidence, isn't science. You are saying, to paraphrase "search of truth" says science lies? NO. That is not even close to what it is. Fuck it, I have a PhD in Chem, and you are telling me I don't know the difference between the bullshit lies the PUBLICATIONS are corrupt, and pretend to extend that to the idea of "science" misleading from truth?
Seriously, you have confused the issue of "science" with the gatekeeprs of the truth that have been OVERTLY been corrupting "science" for about 100 years through this bullshit lying system about what science is. If you want to through out the ONLY reasonable chase of truth, to distrust yourself and test your own theories, the ones that control the narrative have already rotted your brain. SCIENCE is the permute of truth, and to think it's "what's published" that you haven't tested yourself and found to be true is "science..." yea, that's BULLSHIT, that's not science.
The TERM is important. do NOT let ANYONE tell you a publication that they have "proven" anything, and anyone that says "The Science Proves" is a real scientist. This is there ULTIMATE game, make you doubt what is REAL and trust the narrative.
It's not science that's wrong, it's what stories you are told and believe that are the lies. Science has NOTHING to do with "what get's published and reported." That's money, politics, not science. What if they tell you "the sky is really green, you don't see it" (trust me, that's probably published somewhere, misleading for 1900's clickbate). MEDIA is corrupt, not science. MEDIA coverage of science was the first thing they corrupted. LOOK AT WHO OWNS THE JOURNALS and what "published" and "peer reviewed" mean now, vs even 30-40 years ago. That's MEDIA corruption by ownership of publication, deception,... on and on. CLEAR. But "science" under attack is to say "true isn't true anymore,"
Question, if "science" (provide fact, evidence, test it) isn't true, how is anything YOU say true? Attacking the language like that is a HUGE issue of mind control. NEVER stop questioning "is this really true." Anyone that says not to, is NOT a scientist.