Science is often treated as a collection of facts rather than what it truly is: a disciplined way of asking questions. In this episode, Roger Keyserling revisits science and the scientific method through the lens of the HumanCodex, separating the method itself from the institutions, incentives, and narratives that sometimes distort it.

Rather than challenging science, this discussion defends it—by returning to its foundational principles: observation, falsifiability, humility, and revision in the presence of new evidence. The episode explores how science functions best when it remains a process rather than a belief system, and how confusion arises when conclusions are defended with the same rigidity as ideology.

The Codex Edition reframes the scientific method as a living discipline—one that depends on honesty, intellectual restraint, and respect for uncertainty. It examines where modern practice succeeds, where it fails, and why the erosion of methodological integrity has consequences not just for knowledge, but for public trust.

This is not an attack on expertise, nor an invitation to relativism. It is a call to restore clarity between evidence, interpretation, and authority, ensuring that science remains a tool for discovery rather than persuasion.

What the scientific method actually requires to function

The difference between data, interpretation, and consensus

How institutional pressure can distort inquiry

Why skepticism is essential but denial is not

How the HumanCodex frames truth-seeking as an ethical act

Thinkers who value evidence over certainty

Educators and communicators seeking clarity

Listeners frustrated by “science vs belief” false dichotomies

Anyone who wants to understand science without surrendering critical thought

Part of the NextXus: HumanCodex Podcast, this episode anchors scientific inquiry within a broader ethical and philosophical framework—one that honors both rigor and humility.