Well, the very power of the scientific method *is* that they can
   "change their mind tomorrow" so to speak. Facts-as-facts are
   necessary in school but beyond school, less so. Within the
   disciplines of the sciences, the variability in research
   findings is a bonus. I love Google Scholar and live in it
   sometimes. I'm not looking for hard facts because I don't have
   to: I have no tests to pass and no newspaper headlines to write.
   But what I'm looking for is a broad comprehension of the
   strengths and limitations of each field, of each study, and
   somewhere within the mix, come up with some plausible reasoning
   to support whatever is necessary for me at the time, but all the
   while knowing (gratefully so!) that the concept I'm leaning on
   could vanish tomorrow, which keeps me nimble and alert and
   looking for the deeper strengths within each, rather than
   following the latest finding. "New study shows....[insert
   something that overturns 'everything we knew before] has to be
   taken with great skepticism. == The power is that both efforts
   take place simultaneously. == You may be seeing an either/or
   situation.* I'm speaking "both/and". == The various disciplines
   of the sciences (there are many disciplines, many sciences) are
   each viewing the world from their own point of view. Biology
   sees what it sees and interprets through its lens. Physics sees
   what it sees and interprets through its lens. Psychology sees
   what it sees and interprets through its lens. Yet, none of them
   have a singular lens in their own disciplines. There are
   different opinions that vary TREMENDOUSLY within each
   discipline. I'm friends with several theoretical physicists, as
   well as a few going to school for it. They can fight like cats
   and dogs over some things. Within psychology there's just as
   much variety. Pick a discipline with a theoretical component to
   it, and you'll find heated debates about nearly everything. One
   exception MIGHT be chemistry, although there _is_ a limited
   theoretical chemistry field out there, but it doesn't have a
   strong voice because chemistry-as-is is extremely reliable and
   powerful as it stands. Now, what's a general consensus among
   scientists within a discipline? Which scientists? Which studies?
   Who is using the studies and for what purpose? These are all
   important and the facts necessary to use can change with the
   needs of the user. This doesn't invalidate any of it. But,
   outside of chemistry, I can't think of any field that isn't
   bustling with opinion, debate, argument in some fashion. Yet at
   the same time, some things appear to be sturdy and reliable.
   Those are facts. They're practical. Science is a pragmatic
   field. Use what works. Maybe next year something will work
   better. Today's "This is the answer to why?" might not be as
   effective as the answer in 10 years, 100 years. General
   consensus is more of a wibbly wobbly thing. That's what makes it
   powerful. Science can change. Yet when you find a general
   consensus of sorts that's strong enough to support what you need
   it for at the time, the chain of evidence is usually strong
   enough to be pragmatic for its purposes. Science isn't scripture
   nor is it law. It's its own thing. == Science is mitigated
   certainties. It works. It is akin to a rope bridge. Do you trust
   enough to cross? You apply what you know using the methodology
   of proof that seems to work well and you cross. Can I build a
   skyscraper on it? Probably not. But it is strong enough to
   cross, good for its purposes. I apply the scientific method to
   nearly everything yet not exclusively so either. It's more akin
   to the engineering method [I have a chart somewhere that shows
   the differences between them]. The methodology you're learning
   is sound. My point is: it's not a weapon. ==