I’m not trying to convince you of anything or change your mind. I’m only responding to your claim that any of this has anything to do with science.

Your idea of wanting to see the forest through the trees is fine, but it’s not science.

Even wanting to avoid following a method to perfection. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not science. Science requires specifically that everyone follows the same step so that others can try the same thing and replicate it. Each time something can be replicated, the results become more substantiated. That’s why science is praised as the golden standard, because it’s impervious to the whims of people wanting to see the forest through the trees instead of following what the data shows. Simply looking into the forest can lead to many different conclusions, so it would be hard to say which is true.

And that’s kind of where we’re at. Scientists have made their conclusion. Many others have looked into that forest and drawn different conclusions. You’re certainly free to draw your own, but it’s not right to suggest it’s in any way part of science.

Science specifically requires doing the things you say people shouldn’t do when making conclusions, such as following methods perfectly. Again, that’s fine if that’s how you want to live your life. I’m specifically arguing the claim that your method is scientific. As you’ve described, it’s not.