I will try to explain the main mechanisms in a comprehensible way and, I do not want the purists, reaching a wider audience would be a great result especially today when it is sold as a science of real trash. A hypothesis becomes scientific when those who have proposed the verification with methods that try to exclude as far as possible errors, influences and false beliefs. The same experience is then repeated by other individuals (let's call them scientists, to facilitate the understanding of the speech) that, if they get the same results, can confirm or not that the starting hypothesis is correct.
It should be emphasized that as long as scientific studies do not confirm an idea, this remains an unproven hypothesis?
How often do we say that personal experience is not science but "anecdote"?
The subject is vast and at times complicated, but let's try, it's worth it. I will devote a series of articles to the explanation of the mechanisms of research, of studies, I will talk about how a scientific experiment is planned, what are the possible errors and how to reach wrong conclusions even without wanting it.
I hope not to be boring and to make pleasant reading a topic that is often treated as "elite" and therefore not popular.
If science were to become popular, ignorance and superstition would disappear from the Earth and the charlatans would not need judges or police, but our knowledge would be enough, a bit of a critical mind and a healthy use of reason.
This article is dedicated to what is called "scientific evidence" with small digressions in the murky world of those who tried to bluff risking to cheat the whole of humanity.