The Scientific Method Is Not Very Scientific
Scientists, trained in the Ivory Towers of Modern Materialistic Science, believe in "Scientific Method". And they will go down fighting, defending this piece of crap, that they don't even follow.
Most scientific research is trying to find proof for an already defined outcome.
Things like climate change is man made, or lack of connections between smoking and lung cancer, or lack of connections between lead and lower IQ, or lack of connections between vaccines and autism.
All of these were "proven" by a group of scientists. None of which started with observing, it started with "we need to prove that we are not liable" and we need "scientific evidence" that brings doubt to the connections
This is a representation of the scientific method:
However, we do not follow it.
We really think front to back AND back to front.
We work both ends toward the middle
We do not think linearly and follow this circle.
We should acknowledge this fact, and change the scientific method to something that will work the way our brains work.
One disproof throws out the whole theory
Except for all the sacred theories that the ivory tower residents call "Laws". When someone brings up an observation, or a problem with the logic, or problem with the test… well, those are just excused, or the theory is modified, OR the universe is modified to fit the continuation of the theory.
Some examples:
Gravity holds the galaxy together
There was found to not be enough mass to hold the galaxy together. By orders and orders of magnitude. So, we now believe that there is "dark matter" out there. And we haven't found any dark matter. So, the Theory of Gravity should be thrown out, or have a big asterisk that says it doesn't apply to the galaxy. (It doesn't even apply to the solar system, but we ignored that too, and then brought in Einstein to "mostly" solve it.)
Humans evolved from proto-apes
It's a nice story, but there is no evidence for it. They have made some nice pictures of chimps evolving into humans, but there is no fossil record of anything in between. Still it is taught in school as fact.
Another big problem is that they computed how often mutations happen in DNA, that transmits to offspring and moves the species toward human. The numbers computed are larger than the age of the universe. So, well, of course they threw out this theory… who am i kidding, they just buried this finding.
The Laws of Thermodyamics say the universe is running down
Unfortunately for modern materialistic science, the universe seems to becoming more ordered. Like, how did humans get here? That is seriously going against entropy. In fact, all the plants, animals, liquid water, all go against entropy. Almost as if entropy doesn't exist.
And then, from another angle, we have over unity devices. Things that make more energy than was used to make it. Completely against this supposed law. It should be thrown out. But it is not. We just disregard what our lying eyes are showing us, and continue with calling it a law.
We ignore reality because it is not scientific
People used to believe that there was demons, or bad energy in the blood that caused people to get sick. And thus, they used leaches to get the bad blood out. Today we know about germs. Because we invented the microscope.
We used to have no clue about EM radiation outside of the color spectrum we can see. But we have built radios and EM analyzers that allow us to "see" radio waves.
However, the scientists on-high say that things like auras, angels, demons, fairies life after death… don't exist, because we can't see them, and therefore cannot test them, and therefore they don't exist. Why are we like this? So many things before have been unseen, and then become seen, so why do we let the High Priests of the Ivory Towers dictate was is scientific. We have had enough people have experiences with these things, that we should have ways of working with things that aren't seen yet.
But the "Scientific Method" is used as a bludgeon to keep many things that people experience out of the areas we are allows to study.
And this is not all, there are many things that we have overlooked. Things that we could see and measure, but have never thought was important. Things like gut biome. Soil biome (plants do not just grow by themselves). And the largest organ in the human body, that we never saw because of the way we have always dyed slides.
What things in the future will we discover that was always right under our noses?
The problem is that the scientific method doesn't allow for these things. And is used as a giant "ban hammer" for anything that falls outside of what modern science considers real.
What about the observer affect?
One of the biggest problems with the Scientific Method is that observing something, changes the thing.
It is already well known in Quantum Physics, that having an observer present changes what is observed. However, the ivory towered ones claim that this is only with tiny things… unfortunately, there are many experiments that say different.
It will be known in the future, and written into the new scientific method, that we need to keep track of the tester's emotions and expectations need to be recorded along with the test results. But, today, the ones in the Ivory Towers fight against this obvious affect.
In the future, we will find that the laws of science that we are testing, are only a base state, and that state can be modified. This will add a huge dimension to the study of science. (We will be able to create a field in the future, where bombs do not explode. Changing the state of chemical reactions.)
All of these things need to be included in the scientific method, or we aren't even doing science.
We must include that our thoughts and expectations alter our tests.
We must include things that we can't see yet, may have an effect on our tests.
We must include that we do not think linearly.
We must include that scientists are swayed by who pays them.
And we really must make the new scientific method into something that scientists can use.