Re: People lie while today's science is infallible?

Valid points.  However,

When I personally know people - either because they are friends or relatives or because they are members of a group I own and moderate - and those people testify as to their results with no possible motive of self gain, then yes, I tend to believe them.  When I see people take something and see the results with my own eyes, or I take something and see the results with my own eyes, then I tend to believe my "lying eyes" over studies which would have me believe otherwise.

In general, I would agree that peer reviewed studies should have more creedence than mere heresay or testimonials by anonymous persons.  The problem is that the peer review process - whether due to sloppiness, pressure from those who control funding, reluctance to challenge ones peers or whatever reason, has been exposed as being largely flawed.  See for example my article:

Top Researcher Finds Medical Studies to be Largely Wrong or Fraudulent

While the peer review process should be better, and likely is better, than otherwise we must also remember that the peer review process told us that Vioxx, Fosamax, Gardasil and a number of other dangerous mainstream medicines were safe.  In some instances, especially as regards Vioxx, we find that peer reviewed papers and studies were faked and altered by the drug company.  So, one should always follow the money and, imo, always take regard any study funded by a pharma company with a highly jaundiced eye.

On the subject of people worshipping science we will have to agree to disagree.  There are indeed a great many people who worship today's science as infallible.  Such has ever been the case - dating back to when the "science" of the day thought the earth was flat, thought the universe revolved around the earth and viewed Galileo and Newton as heretics.

Yes, religion and science have always been entertwined - but when faith in science becomes blind faith then it has in effect become more religion than science.

I would propose that actual observation in real life is part of science as well and that critical thinking would not reject eye-witness observation, reports from reliable sources and hundreds of years of observed results such as we see in much of natural healing simply because it has not been accepted and properly understood by the science of the day.