Bird, Let's not confuse GOOD science with popular or accepted view of any group. Good science is based on the scientific method and a great deal of active skepticism. Just because the opinion du jour is expressed by a guy wearing a white lab coat doesn't make it good science any more than a minority collection of anecdotal findings that are contrary to scientifically gathered data disprove the "science" of that data.

Flat earth was never good science, just the accepted popular view.

Galileo Galilei championed Copernicanism, a controversial view within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle. It was THE ACCEPTED view. Galileo would have been put to death as a heretic by the Pope had he not been persuaded by his friends to recant. I read that he was heard to mutter under his breath as he left the papal audience, "it moves." Galileo was a scientist.

The presentation of and understanding of statistics is one of the points of difficulty that tends to obscure a common understanding of the underlying causal relationships for most of the population.

When you microwave a bag of popcorn you expect a certain percentage of kernels to not pop based on your observation over several trials. Those kernels that don't pop are not justification for claiming the bag did not contain popcorn. Similarly, there are many investigations, especially in medical science, where there are a significant number of "odd flyers." The overwhelming evidence may show that for the vast majority a certain set of situations greatly increases the chances of some outcome(s) but still there will be those whose actual experience is contrary to the majority.

Most critics of "smoking is hazordous to your health" use this small minority to try to prove the general case. That in itself is really bad science. Statistically, walking across the street without looking in either direction is not prudent behavior but because it is not Consumer Reports check rated lethal first time every time and you did it unharmed, is it therefore not dangerous?

Pat