MOST of what passes as "science" has nothing to do with the Scientific Method -- it is all dogma and propaganda.

I read scientific papers daily and have for years. There is a lot of bad science, but its (generally) not because of misunderstanding or misapplying the scientific method. There are two main problems with "main stream" science:

1. There is a lot of incentive to not check other's work, especially in biology/medicine (especially in medicine (lots of money)). This is not in direct contradiction of the scientific method, but it does run contrary to a PART of what makes the method work.
2. The dogma and propaganda is not in the science part of the papers, but in the choice of topic to look at, and in the non-science part of the papers (abstract, discussion, sometimes intro). For instance, there are quite a few recent papers on the effectiveness of masks. They look at water droplet transmission. The science part is all perfectly fine. The measurements, analysis, all great. Where it fails is in the assumptions. It assumes that viruses are transmitted by exhaled water droplets. Other science does not support that assertion, though inquiry into this particular topic seems to be rare. It assumes that viral transmission of said droplets is of the size of the droplets studied. In most cases that runs contrary to other evidence. They might even say "it has not been established that this is how viruses are transmitted" yet they still go happily forward with the study anyways, then conclude with "if everything you already believe is true, we prove that masks work".

So it isn't science or the scientific method that is failing in the microcosm of any particular study, but a purposeful or unintentional misleading of the starting point, using real science that doesn't (or hasn't proven to) apply.

In a broader scope you could say that is a failure of the scientific method, but it isn't. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis and works forward from there. This starting point can be anything an investigator wants. It is the foundational axiom of inquiry. It is the abuse of the hypothesis that is exploited in these instances. Many people don't catch that, either because they are insufficiently educated, or because their biases encourage them not to. That is supposed to be solved by problem (1) (checking others work).

It is the disincentivization of not checking others work where the whole thing falls apart. This disincentivization by control of money or job prospects is what drives this issue. Because it is money/livelihood based, I believe, this is likely the purposeful guidance of the Luciferians on our science.

MOST of what passes as "science" has nothing to do with the Scientific Method -- it is all dogma and propaganda.

I read scientific papers daily and have for years. There is a lot of bad science, but its not necessarily because of misunderstanding or misapplying the scientific method. There are two main problems with "main stream" science:

1. There is a lot of incentive to not check other's work, especially in biology/medicine (especially in medicine (lots of money)). This is not in direct contradiction of the scientific method, but it does run contrary to a PART of what makes the method work.
2. The dogma and propaganda is not in the science part of the papers, but in the choice of topic to look at, and in the non-science part of the papers (abstract, discussion, sometimes intro). For instance, there are quite a few recent papers on the effectiveness of masks. They look at water droplet transmission. The science part is all perfectly fine. The measurements, analysis, all great. Where it fails is in the assumptions. It assumes that viruses are transmitted by exhaled water droplets. Other science does not support that assertion, though inquiry into this particular topic seems to be rare. It assumes that viral transmission of said droplets is of the size of the droplets studied. In most cases that runs contrary to other evidence. They might even say "it has not been established that this is how viruses are transmitted" yet they still go happily forward with the study anyways, then conclude with "if everything you already believe is true, we prove that masks work".

So it isn't science or the scientific method that is failing in the microcosm of any particular study, but a purposeful or unintentional misleading of the starting point, using real science that doesn't (or hasn't proven to) apply.

In a broader scope you could say that is a failure of the scientific method, but it isn't. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis and works forward from there. This starting point can be anything an investigator wants. It is the foundational axiom of inquiry. It is the abuse of the hypothesis that is exploited in these instances. Many people don't catch that, either because they are insufficiently educated, or because their biases encourage them not to.