Science!
Reading some science articles I realized a fundamental division between science I enjoy and science I don't enjoy. Science I enjoy explores the history of our planet and of space or seeks to explain how physical things work. Science I don't enjoy tends to try and constrain the metaphysical world or tell individual people how to live their lives and what is healthy for them.
The Scientific Method is a fantastic tool but can be too broadly applied in a way that is truly just sloppy science. As an obvious and extreme example, saying that a particular diet is most healthy for all humans does not hold all variables constant. There is no way to do a dietary study that takes into account our remarkably unique individual biologies. Thus a better statement would be that a particularly diet resulted in greater health for a statistically relevant portion of the human population and perhaps you should try it and see if it works for you.
Also, from a rigorous epistemological standpoint there are simply things that science has no business talking about because the scientific method does not apply or because we do not have sufficient technology to detect or measure particular potential phenomena. In these cases, Science should mind its own business just as religion has no business telling us about how to create technology or what our geological or human history is. Certainly a religious book can be looked at a potential source of historical information, but merely one among many and often packed with particular biases. Similarly we can apply the scientific method to exploring religious claims but since we have no consistently acurate technology to detect and measure spiritual phenomena Science is beholden by its own rules to an agnostic position.
The Scientific Method is a fantastic tool but can be too broadly applied in a way that is truly just sloppy science. As an obvious and extreme example, saying that a particular diet is most healthy for all humans does not hold all variables constant. There is no way to do a dietary study that takes into account our remarkably unique individual biologies. Thus a better statement would be that a particularly diet resulted in greater health for a statistically relevant portion of the human population and perhaps you should try it and see if it works for you.
Also, from a rigorous epistemological standpoint there are simply things that science has no business talking about because the scientific method does not apply or because we do not have sufficient technology to detect or measure particular potential phenomena. In these cases, Science should mind its own business just as religion has no business telling us about how to create technology or what our geological or human history is. Certainly a religious book can be looked at a potential source of historical information, but merely one among many and often packed with particular biases. Similarly we can apply the scientific method to exploring religious claims but since we have no consistently acurate technology to detect and measure spiritual phenomena Science is beholden by its own rules to an agnostic position.