True Science Versus False Science

Based on the following, how can we determine the difference between "true science" and "false science"?

EGW wrote the following:

Human knowledge of both material and spiritual things is partial and imperfect; therefore many are unable to harmonize their views of science with Scripture statements. Many accept mere theories and speculations as scientific facts, and they think that God's Word is to be tested by the teachings of "science falsely so called." The Creator and his works are beyond their comprehension; and because they cannot explain these by natural laws, Bible history is regarded as unreliable. Those who doubt the reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments too often go a step father, and doubt the existence of God, and attribute infinite power to nature. Having let go their anchor, they are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity. {GC88 522.3}

I think we have an excellent example today of what is science falsely so called. All this masks and covid stuff is not based on true science, but people who falsely call science. No science papers show that masks prevent disease. And no science paper show vaccines prevent disease. There are some that show the probabilities are maybe reduced, but when you look at the true science, you find those who falsely call science are misconstruing things.

So simple. Does the "science" show facts, or do people "conclude" facts?

Another example. It is a "fact" that carbon ratios / argon ratios / whatever, are measured. It is science falsely so called to conclude an age of the earth to them. Conclusions are, well, conclusions. Not scientific facts.

Eighty years ago a Lobotomy was considered SETTLED SCIENCE

By Dr. Ken D. Berry

Back in the 1940-50s a Lobotomy in the treatment of certain mental disorders was considered "Settled Science". If a doctor questioned this barbaric procedure he would have been viewed as ignorant or inadequate.

In fact, in 1949, the inventor of the procedure, Doctor Ant?nio Egas Moniz, was awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery. Lobotomy was considered Standard of Care, and any neurosurgeon not performing this accepted procedure would have been considered sub-standard.

Looking back now, we realize how ignorant these doctors were, and how dangerous this procedure was. Thousands of patients had their SELF destroyed by this procedure and became docile, robotic, non-humans

So, when you hear someone say the phrase "Settled Science, just remember that the Lobotomy used to be that. When you hear someone talk about Standard of Care, realize that this is often based on no meaningful research, and based entirely on the opinions of a few "experts" in the field.

There is no such thing as Settled Science, everything should be questioned and studied.

Standard of Care is a false paradigm implying that we know everything about a subject there is to know, and that this model should not be questioned.

Think, study, watch, research, debate; we are figuring it out as we go.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_Egas_Moniz

What I noticed is that many of these people do not believe in God to say nothing of the Biblical Creation, and change the subject if you even bring up anything related to it..