I listen to others but believe my own eyes. Scientific proof is nice, but not required for my eyeballs.
The thing about your statement is that what you see (the conclusion) is the result of the science (the whole story, the plot, and the main players).
When Joe Grow shows you a picture of his monster plant that he said is a result of changing XYZ to ZYX he made, you are missing ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW factos that the XYZ change did or did not change.
Here is the clincher, without the science you will never know if changing XYZ to ZYX is what actually caused the monster crop or was it thatif changing XYZ to ZYX under HIS CURRENT ARRANGEMENT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW that did it. Your Q maybe where his A is.
Case in point, Joe Grow typically has 9 ounces per plant on 24/0, Bro tells him to switch to 18/6 for a bigger yield, he has proof in pictures. Joe Grow tries and gets nothing more worth telling. Joe College takes Joe Grow's advice gets a pound more per plant and swears by Bro's science.
Well, actual science proves 18/6 does zilch for c3 and c4 plants. So WTF?
Truth is, if you look closely at Joe College's setup, he most likely did something else that without science he will never know. By this time a new sheriff is in town, the word is out and everyone is doing 18/6 in hopes of getting Joe College's results or better.
Across the growers, their results look like the NY skyline, some huge, some tiny., some medium and some no change. The scientific Truth is hat 18/6 had nothing to do with any results but their individual setups, nute regimens, PH, RH, Temp, CO2, Genetics, wattage/sq foot and the list goes on.
At this point Joe Grow simply thinks he is a bad gardener. Science saves you time & money, increases your yield, and boosts your confidence that you are not guessing results from pictures