This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. What is good science and how far can it go?

The purpose of this paper is to address some issues in introductory philosophy of science: the nature of science, what are its limits, and if and how they should be managed. An attempt is also made to prepare a well-supported list of good scientific research practices. As a researcher who has done most of his work in health and human performance, my focus is on the sciences of nature and, more specifically, on human movement science. Everywhere we look we see numerous health and fitness claims supposedly based on science. The fact that many of these claims contradict each other doesn't seem to bother most people, actually, for many, it is better that way, because each individual can conveniently find “scientific ” support for his or her own practices and beliefs. This last element is crucial because science enjoys today a similar status in Western society as religion enjoyed in Europe in the middle ages: it is the final authority that you question at your own peril. I need to ask: just how reliable, how final, how all-encompassing (universally competent) is science as a source of knowledge and a guide for life? Most scientists agree that a simple theory or explanation is better than a complicated one. Although there seems to be no philosophically sound basis for this presupposition, it is necessary to start somewhere, so I will begin with the most simple view of science which—together with Chalmer