And how to do you come to that conclusion or measure such a thing?

Look

I'm not saying a long study makes it valid

but a long study under the same given conditions is superior to a short study

By observing the overall quality of science in terms of measurable impact or real insight

And again I say

Not necessarily

Long enough is the best one can say

Long enough is subjective

To some degree yes

Rest dependent on studied thing

Science always proceded on insight

Confirmed by experiment perhaps

Perhaps not

If we were to tally the causes of starvation to attempt to prevent it, counting only the past 100 years of history is entirely inferior to measuring the entirety of both history and prehistory.

This is objective

the more data you have the better

The better in what sense

To check against your own conclusions?

To compound an error you made?

The better understanding of what causes starvation

More data also gives you the ability to construct viable seeming statistical models

Which are basically best fit abstractions. Or not even best fit

That are not true. You see this a lot in recent high energy physics

And astronomy

Where there is a surfiet of data

And papers being written every day based on it that will turn out to be spurious

The vast majority

Actually it would give you less ability to construct viable statisticial models because it allots for more variation

Viable as in viable seeming

I don't see how that changes anything

More data = more possibility for deviation of an imagined pattern

My point isnt the things you said dont matter

This helps remove human bias when theories don't match up

I respectfully think most of the scientific community disagrees

But you're free to your opinion

More data is not necessarily more possibility for deviation

But it is

In an assumption

That's simply fact

Not at all