This thread was inspired by medicine-related news. For a long time, it was believed that lycopene, a substance found predominantely in tomatoes, helped to fight cancer. However, recent research shows that lycopene actually worsens cancer! At the same time, they now believe that apple peel is very helpful to fight against cancer. Ok. I'm not a genius, but there is only one truth. Lycopene is either helpful or harmful. So why does one research shows that it's helpful and the other harmful? Some scenarios: 1) We gained new knowledge before the new research, therefore, the scientific method is limited by our knowledge range. 2) Our methods of research improved, therefore the scientific method is limited by the accuracy our research methods. 3) Our statistical methods are insufficient to produce reliable results. 4) Other. 5) A combination of the above I would think one of the main problems is that the use of statistical methods are insufficient, on their own, to produce a reliable result. One must create logical explanations if they want to create an accurate theory. For instance, if apple peel seems to really help, then you have to specify the components in the apple that produce such results AND not only test it with statistical methods, but also carefully research how those components interact with our bodies in different circumstances. Of course, the difficulty in this scenario would be in terms of time and money restrictions, as such pedantic practices would be extremely time consuming. Anyways... any thoughts? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!