That only works if you already know something is/isn't true with absolute certainty.
It's useless for fundamental research, because by definition you're exploring what you don't know yet.
The real problem is more one of labelling. "True according to science" isn't a binary, but it's treated as if it is - especially by marketers.
Science is more like a set of concentric circles of decreasing confidence. You can be very confident indeed about the contents of the centre circle which includes undergraduate physics and engineering. You can also be confident that there are commonly agreed edge cases, areas of inaccuracy, and extreme circumstances where the science stops being reliable.
As you get further away from the centre confidence decreases. A lot of the debate about replication is about research that is a long way from the centre, where uncertainty is high.
But neither researchers nor the science press nor the mainstream media will report this. Studies are usually presented as "Science says...", as if you're supposed to be just as confident of the results of a psychological study that asks a population of 30 undergrads from the same college and the same year some poorly designed questions as you are in Special Relativity.
It's useless for fundamental research, because by definition you're exploring what you don't know yet.
The real problem is more one of labelling. "True according to science" isn't a binary, but it's treated as if it is - especially by marketers.
Science is more like a set of concentric circles of decreasing confidence. You can be very confident indeed about the contents of the centre circle which includes undergraduate physics and engineering. You can also be confident that there are commonly agreed edge cases, areas of inaccuracy, and extreme circumstances where the science stops being reliable.
As you get further away from the centre confidence decreases. A lot of the debate about replication is about research that is a long way from the centre, where uncertainty is high.
But neither researchers nor the science press nor the mainstream media will report this. Studies are usually presented as "Science says...", as if you're supposed to be just as confident of the results of a psychological study that asks a population of 30 undergrads from the same college and the same year some poorly designed questions as you are in Special Relativity.