Originally Posted by
CommanderFun
There is in fact common knowledge that is accepted and based entirely on a wealth of anecdotes. Sticking your bare hand in a fire burns your hand. We did not need an elaborately crafted mengele-esque experiment where people were forced to barbeque their hands under controlled conditions to determine this. We've used the scientific method to understand WHY it burns our hands, but we did not need it to know that it does.
Science ignoring a wealth of anecdotal evidence seems more anti-science than anything to me. If there is a wealth of anecdotes that cannot be explained by the current body of scientific knowledge, that means science needs to be investigating the fuck out of the phenomenon, not waving it away.
But this is part of how they use science to craft narratives and push agendas. "No studies have shown X." Well, has anyone even tried running one? How about anyone who doesn't stand to have their own interests significantly impacted by whether X is true or not?