I am often shocked how people consider science to be 100% true without recognizing that our understanding is constantly evolving and scientific facts have continually been proven wrong and corrected as more evidence and understanding is gained.
I'm not saying that we cannot trust science - not by a long shot. Instead, I'm saying we need to be more critical of scientific researcher's findings.
It seems more and more scientific discovery is being fueled by funding resources with preconceived ideas/opinions that lead to "expected" results regardless of the real scientific research findings. In other words, if you want next year's research funded, you better have findings that conform to the funding resource's goals/expectations or you'll be out of work next year.
Also, more and more, scientific research seems to be a popularity or shock contest with the goal to be published in a journal regardless if you actually discovered or proved anything.
I like what John Arnold's foundation is doing.
http://www.arnoldfoundation.org/initiative/research-integrity/
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/john-arnold-waging-war-on-bad-science/
LJAF’s Research Integrity initiative aims to improve the reliability and validity of scientific research across fields that inform governmental policy, philanthropic endeavors, and individual decision making. When research is accurate, thorough, and accessible, it can have tremendously beneficial consequences for individuals and society. However, when research is flawed or hidden from public view, there is the potential for great harm. People often believe that if research is published in an academic journal, it is scientifically sound. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. A substantial portion of research does not adhere to rigorous standards for quality and transparency.
