Evidence is always true but the problem is in how it is compiled and how it is applied to your study. That is the power of science, you don't carve your conclusion in stone and everyone and everything is open to debate. The article shows this. Compare this to mystical / religious doctrine.

I was raised an atheist. It has no more to do with science and analytic thought, than any other belief system. This stuff about evidence, or proving/disproving anything, is just a diversion.

I am still somewhat gobsmacked that so many skeptics groups seem to buy into the 9/11 official narrative. If there was ever a case to demonstrate the physics of the collapse(s), it was this one. Certainly more thought provoking than the time-honored science fair volcano, regardless of which camp you fall into.

Everything is illusive. The only thing I know for sure is the effect of beauty, that love is the energy of life, and that everything changes.

Yes, just ask trump maga followers and the obstructionists republican fascist who use false everything to justify there existence over us!!!

The article makes a good point about psychotherapy. How much "healing" can be achieved by having someone just taking the time to listen. Often I think a lot of the apparent success of alternative medicines, stems from this. Many prostitutes say that they have quite a few clients that just want to talk. To have someone paid to listen is all they need.
I read a good book called "Betrayers of the truth". It chronicles lots of scientific fraud both large and small, also problems inherent with replication. Say you are working on some obscure areas like banana skin enzymes. What prompts someone across the globe to replicate your research? They have their own grants to chase after and you don't get them by replication.
Some of the most famous scientists have been guilty of fraud. Ptolemy stole his data from the library of Alexandria (the observations he claimed as his, were taken 20 years earlier from Cyprus). Galileo made assumptions falling objects that he never submitted to experiments. Mendel`s peas were just TOO perfect.
Psychology has been perhaps one of the worst culprits. In 1917, the US gave all inducted soldiers an IQ test. Findings of which were later used as a guideline for govt policies. The test conditions were far from perfect or standard but "conclusive" results emerged. Blacks and East Europian immigrants including jews had a lower than average IQ. It failed to notice that northern blacks did better on average than southern whites or that immigrants that had been in the US longer scored higher too. Tragically it formed the basis of immigration policy in the 1930s.

I like to think that we work off the best information available. If something is proven to be inaccurate, that's when we should search for the newest most accurate information.

In psychology it is always subjective even the studies. This is not the standard scientific usage of the word "evidence". The reason I came to discover that I was an athiest is the evidence IN the bible disproved the bible was written by a god.

"We all believe in evidence-based science, and that's why we're agnostic/atheist, right?"
Probably not in the way you phrased that.

I certainly trust the scientific method as it is the best we have.
That did not have a thing to do with my lack of belief.
Evidence based science is a large part of my worldview, but it did not drive me to Atheism. Rather that was investigation of religion, comparative religion, anthropology and cultural anthropology.

What obliged me to adopt a position of non belief is the failure of every religion ever, to prove its assertions with evidence.
Not what science has modeled thus far, or the accuracy or completeness of said models.

Then you have to use a science action plan I.e. A new experiment to sort it out - if necessary ad infinitum What you do NOT do is use someone else's science unless you completely trust them.

Then there's no reason to believe it.

No, science has nothing to do with God thingies. Science is the study of nature not super nature. I am not famuliar with all purported God thingies but one I am famuliar with would require some knowledge and understanding in physics, cognition and psychology to understand. Biblically, "ruach" is translated into English as spirit. Biblically, logos is translated into "word" in English. Spirit and logos in English is not the best of words to use.

Ruach is a force. In physics we understand force in one way as mass times acceleration. F = ma.

It is purported that God thingie have communicated to natural people. The way to understand this interaction biblically how it happens is as people over 2000 years ago tried to explain communication or information with kinetic energy. Physics of information would be a good course to take to better understand information with kinetic energy.

What about it?

No, I do not believe in evidence-based science. I find the models of the natural world that science provides to be the most useful models available. The issue of replication is just a part of a wider debate between scientists.