I don't want to seem like I'm piling on here, but I think the problem is more you and your buddy and the exposure you've had to science.
There are basically two very separate types of science, "people science" and "science science". "Science science" is the sort of heart of the field as other have described it above. People involved with this type either work in research and developement, or some kind of engineers, and they are the ones who typically read and write the technical papers and the odd thesis that gets filtered down to muggles. They typically disagree strongly with each other, all the time, and are constantly testing, questioning, nitpicking and so forth while producing paper after paper.
"People science" is more or less what you're talking about. It is made from the bits of "science science" that gets filtered down to the public eye. All of those papers are read by someone else, put into a "disagrees with me" or "agrees with me" pile, and then the person who did all the reading tells somebody else - a journalist or politician or philosopher - what they thought the "science science" means, and then that person finally makes a press release or writes an article, or a book on what they think their source thought the "science science" means.
And that is how you get all these politically charged, funded, amalgamated and socially conscious science that somehow all agrees with what we want to agree with. Its not that "science science" isn't doing the studies you're talking about, its just that since you trust people to find and present you with the information rather than seeking it yourself, you are being given what they presenters want you to see.
There are basically two very separate types of science, "people science" and "science science". "Science science" is the sort of heart of the field as other have described it above. People involved with this type either work in research and developement, or some kind of engineers, and they are the ones who typically read and write the technical papers and the odd thesis that gets filtered down to muggles. They typically disagree strongly with each other, all the time, and are constantly testing, questioning, nitpicking and so forth while producing paper after paper.
"People science" is more or less what you're talking about. It is made from the bits of "science science" that gets filtered down to the public eye. All of those papers are read by someone else, put into a "disagrees with me" or "agrees with me" pile, and then the person who did all the reading tells somebody else - a journalist or politician or philosopher - what they thought the "science science" means, and then that person finally makes a press release or writes an article, or a book on what they think their source thought the "science science" means.
And that is how you get all these politically charged, funded, amalgamated and socially conscious science that somehow all agrees with what we want to agree with. Its not that "science science" isn't doing the studies you're talking about, its just that since you trust people to find and present you with the information rather than seeking it yourself, you are being given what they presenters want you to see.