I think we agree - trying things you think might work is a good place to start, then you can attempt to confirm that empirically.

Predictions have to start somewhere.

What bothers me about the comment I replied to was the hostility to trying to understanding the underlying mechanism. "As long as it does something beneficial who cares after all what the bias is?" is not a good position. That kind of thing leads to people doubling down when it turns out their pet hypothesis is actually shown to be wrong (not saying that's the case here).

It can also lead to people thinking they see benefits where none exist (or where the activity is even harmful), it can lead to people making up explanations (most of human history).

It's good to be willing to try new things, but also to have a healthy skepticism.

I am usually a skeptical person and am aware that there is a lot of pseudoscience floating around. But, I think that is not necessarily a bad thing. People try things and what works is later scrutinized and better understood in a scientific way if you will. What doesn’t work will get itself out of the way eventually. You are free to practice whatever you think is understood(and also be aware that current understanding is bound to change, sometimes it does take 180’ turns). But you risk missing out on things that are not yet understood and yet beneficial. Sure, all people are at risk of wasting their time with a quack theory or practice. Again, I dont think that is a bad thing, more people may become skeptical that way

Thanks - I think that's fair, but it doesn't necessarily get out of the way without casualties.

I'm bothered when something that is still uncertain is put forward as true, I think people are generally over confident where they should be less certain. Even this can be harmful in ways people don't expect [0].

It becomes really harmful though when stuff known to be false is pushed as true (conspiracy theories like not getting cancer treatment). This leads people to not pursue treatment they desperately need. In their case they won't have the opportunity to become more skeptical afterwards.

There's also the risk of political influence pushing certain things as true that aren't and real knowledge can be lost (though I think that's less likely to happen today).

In this specific breathing case, it's benefit being real or not is probably not that big of a deal - but the underlying value of wanting to understand why something is really true or not I think is important.

[0]: https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#the-potential-harm-don...

> Advances in technology are usually the result of tinkering as opposed to directed research or science.

In older times yes, but you can easily demonstrate that scientific progress was WAY faster once we developed actual methods to test things in a reliable way.

It's hard to pin scientific progress to reliable testing. We also had dramatic advances in communication, travel, collaboration, computing power, and access to education, for instance. Not to mention more and bigger wars which always moves things along in certain directions (for the wrong reasons, but nevertheless)

> pin scientific progress to reliable testing.

The dramatic advances you refer to happened after a time we developed reliable scientific methods.