Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts (2020)
Science is not concerned with truth, which is out of its domain.
Truth is a matter of philosophy, which provides a theoretical framework, which comes before any empirical work can be done. 
(Read this article: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;scientific-underdetermination&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;scientific-underdetermina...</a>)<p>Therefore we have to assume that the current scientific &quot;trend&quot; or scientific &quot;vogue&quot; is only the &quot;best error&quot; we currently believe in. Or do we?
Who determines, if they really are &quot;the best error&quot; &#x2F; &quot;the best models we have&quot;?<p>Doesn&#x27;t that involve an unjustified belief in something called &quot;progress&quot;?
Why don&#x27;t we ever assume we might have regressed? 
Of course, if you believe in one of the pillars of the society-permeating quasi religious belief in science, then &quot;science is always self-correcting&quot;.<p>But I would implore you to read Thomas Kuhn and &#x2F; or Ludwik Fleck, regarding how &quot;scientific knowledge&quot; is not something from the heavens or the olymp of science, where the &quot;wise men&quot; sit and determine whats &quot;true&quot; or not, solely motivated by their unquestionable and uncorruptable love for the truth, but mostly a social process, as it is with all other human endeavours.<p>It is still a human activity and scientists are no saints or even gods, even if many of them wish to be.<p>They are still prone to all the human errors we have, like pride, greed, pettiness, fear, lust for power etc., all of which can motivate them to struggle with another, spin intrigues and boot out competitors from getting their theories accepted, because it could undermine their own research funds, positions or legacy.<p>We CAN regress!<p>Science is not concerned with truth... again.
Believing otherwise is scientism, a bastard philosophy derived from empiricism &#x2F; positivism, which actually undermines science at its base, since it&#x27;s main epistemological assumption (&quot;truth comes from science&quot;) falls flat based on its own criteria, meaning it&#x27;s self-refuting. Does this assumption come through science as well? Show me the experiment, where this assumption was produced and determined to be true. 
It is a philosophical assumption, an universal truth claim and it wasn&#x27;t derived from a scientific experiment, so it can&#x27;t be true.<p>Science is NOT the end all be all determinator of what is true or right.
How can it be, since scientific experiments are an extension of sensory data (empiricism) and we cannot have sense data of the entire universe, therefore universal truth claims cannot be possible?
These are outside ot science&#x27;s domain. 
Science needs philosohpy, otherwise they cannot justifiably use certain categories, such as universals, which assume regularity, for which we don&#x27;t have a justification, since we still have &quot;the problem of induction&quot;, which Hume correctly pointed out.
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stanford.library.sydney.edu.au&#x2F;archives&#x2F;sum2016&#x2F;entries&#x2F;induction-problem&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stanford.library.sydney.edu.au&#x2F;archives&#x2F;sum2016&#x2F;entr...</a><p>And &quot;the scientific method&quot; is not some magical formula which produces truth, as well. 
As nothing is really set in stone in science, that doesn&#x27;t derive directly from philosophy (i.e. math), how come nobody ever conducted scientific experiments into the validity of the scientific method itself?<p>People should not make &quot;The Science&quot;(TM) into a cult and it shouldn&#x27;t inform all aspects of our lives, especially since science cannot make value judgements, since as Hume said one cannot derive an OUGHT from an IS. But to know that, a lot more scientists should be trained in philosophy, especially metaphysics and logic, which they are usually not (I speak from experience in the field of science).<p>This short paper does a good job to clarify this:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.academia.edu&#x2F;10290501&#x2F;Science_cannot_determine_human_values" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.academia.edu&#x2F;10290501&#x2F;Science_cannot_determine_h...</a><p>Even if one isn&#x27;t one of the &quot;experts&quot;, one can still have their reservations regarding their propounded &quot;truths&quot;. Just because he is an &quot;expert&quot;, I don&#x27;t have to believe in his conclusions, solely based on his credentials. 
This would be an authority fallacy.<p>Always remember:
&quot;Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.<p>‘The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.’ (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.thelancet.com&#x2F;pdfs&#x2F;journals&#x2F;lancet&#x2F;PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.thelancet.com&#x2F;pdfs&#x2F;journals&#x2F;lancet&#x2F;PIIS0140-6736...</a>)&quot;
-&gt; taken from <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.globalresearch.ca&#x2F;editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false&#x2F;5451305" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.globalresearch.ca&#x2F;editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best...</a><p>All of it and all of them can and should be questioned, even if you&#x27;re not from another field of inquiry.<p>Otherwise this is just another religion, where the &quot;experts&quot; are the new priest-class.<p>We should all be aware of the limitations of science.