"Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe."
This quote is from an article in The New Yorker that examines the problems of the reproducibility of scientific results. This is a gigantic topic, filled with real scientific concerns, political insincerity and money. After all, if pharmaceutical studies are inherently flawed, who can treat what? And how do we examine things? The essence of the scientific method--one could argue the essence of the modern world--is systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Is that inherently flawed? And how do you do that with String Theory? Or Evolution? Or Global Warming?
And if we must "chose what to believe," what happens to discussion and debate?