[humanistbot]

> The author argues that science should become an anarchic enterprise, not a nomic (customary) one;[1] in the context of the work, the term "anarchy" refers to epistemological anarchy, which does not remain within one single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would restrict scientific progress.

So sometimes we can have randomized controlled trials to really understand the effectiveness of drugs, but we can't RCT climate change or the big bang, so we have to use simulations and models. That doesn't seem like "anything goes", more like a response to that one guy in my econ class who always ranted that if it wasn't backed by a RCT, all theories are BS.

[nequo]

> that one guy in my econ class who always ranted that if it wasn't backed by a RCT, all theories are BS.

The converse may be true though. If it is not backed by a theory, an RCT is BS.

[eutectic]

There are many effective medicines for which the mechanism is unclear or disputed. Should we stop using them?

[operator-name]

You can use things for which there is weak or conflicting evidence for, just as you can take a sauna just becuase it makes you feel good. But take them as what they are and accept that doing so does not follow a strict interpretation of the scientific method.