You could, conceivably, increase the volume of “science” without increasing its accuracy. How do we know we’re not doing that?
To me it seems pretty obvious that we are doing that, and have been for many decades. But I suppose spelling out an argument for this conclusion suitable for a general audience would require bridging some significant inferential distances.
To me it seems pretty obvious that we are doing that, and have been for many decades. But I suppose spelling out an argument for this conclusion suitable for a general audience would require bridging some significant inferential distances.