Array
Scientists are often smart people. It’s an academically rigorous profession, after all; different professions attract different candidate profiles, and I’m sure the career path of a scientist is deeply enticing to many intelligent men and women.
Of course, lawyers are often very smart people, too. Same with doctors, accountants, architects, and cybersecurity experts. Really, the top earners in most professions are almost always bright, capable, creative people: I absolutely guarantee you that the top 1% of garbagemen are significantly smarter than the lowest 1% of lawyers and doctors.
I’ll betcha any amount of money you want.
Hey, half of all doctors, lawyers, and scientists finished in the bottom half of their class! (Have fun figuring out who’s who, next time you’re in the waiting room.) Hence the old joke, “What do you call a doctor who finished last in his class?”
You call him a doctor.
The scientific method is a wonderful tool. It’s responsible for so much social growth. Only a moron would be anti-science. But it’s still just a tool, and not every tool is useful in every situation.
The hammer is also a wonderful tool, but guess what? If you need a screwdriver or a hacksaw, a hammer is gonna do a lousy job. It’ll make an absolute mess out of things because it’s the wrong tool for the job.
When it comes to replicable experimentation — where all the different variables can be accounted for — the scientific method is peerless. It’s an invaluable tool for deconstructing the true nature of the universe. Best of all, it’s a self-correcting mechanism: More experiments lead to more (and better) data, validating truths and exposing false assumptions.
