Science and the Rhythm Method

Laura Spinney has written an interesting article, roughly comparing Science to the rhythm method of contraception (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/26/science-advances-genetics-ai-attacks-politics). She reiterates that science (observation, deduction, making testable predictions, doing balanced tests [often with results requiring modification or rejection of the original deduction] and replication by others) is a methodology that has yielded extraordinary advances in many areas when 'rigorously applied' but which can also be misused, ignored or attacked by interest groups. Spinney points to advances in the last decade in physics (confirmation of the existence of long-predicted particles); astronomy (proliferation of exoplanets); genetics (determining more about the origins, development and early migrations of our species) and artificial intelligence (with its potential applications for good). She also lists some of the mistreatment of science by racists, technologists failing to abide by agreed ethical constraints and vested interests. There is, however, a major difference between science and the rhythm method as the former gives benefits when applied appropriately whereas the latter routinely fails when not followed rigorously. I still think that one of the biggest areas of concern, however, is the failure of many companies and governments to fully respond to the issues surrounding climate change and losses of biodiversity. I suspect I am not alone.