Follow the science but don't trust the scientists

“I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to science. Science has, in many ways, helped ease the suffering of this pandemic, which was more than likely caused by science.”
–John Stewart; See video starting at 2:30

Science is a method of experimentally investigating world. It is apolitical.

On the other hand, scientists are humans who have their own personal agendas that include financial and political considerations.

Is time to trust science, but to be skeptical of scientists?

1 Like

Skepticism is part of science or should be.

The problem is when people who are obviously not qualified because they don’t understand the science become publicly critical and substitute their own opinion for expert skepticism.

yeah, like zuckerberg.


Thanks for fixing the mess you made, Science. :rofl:

1 Like

Science is a tool. Nuclear energy may be a good solution to solving global environmental issues, or it could destroy human civilization.

The same sort of thing is true of genetic engineering.

1 Like

and we helped pay for it… Fauci knew.

OUr govt is corrupt.

So, Most the left fell for fake news again. They will never learn.

All headlines from the MSM need 1 to 3 years to be proven true.

“Trust the science, it’s a natural virus”

“Trust the science, you don’t need a mask”

“Trust the science, crash the economy”

“Trust the science, large crowds are fine for left-wing political speech”

“Trust the science, Trump rallies are super-spreader events”

"Trust the science, take this experimental vaccine "

Anyone see a pattern here??

1 Like

“Trust the science,” + thing @ohknow35 thought was said


Part of the problem is that journalists and the general public have very limited knowledge of science. “Science” has become whatever a few government-funded scientists and spokespersons say it is.

In the case of the origin of the pandemic, government-funded scientists and science journals who are concerned about business in China developed a party line that excluded any possibility of a lab origin. Any scientist who challenged the party line would not get published, could lose funding, and would face bans and ridicule in the media.

Few scientists were willing to risk ruining their careers to challenge established orthodoxy even if they recognized it was total ■■■■■■■■■


That is A problem, not THE problem.

THE problem is the scientific illiteracy of most Americans, coupled with the Internet Dunning-Krugering them into believing they’re actually expert at it.


“The key sticks to my chest because magnets, not because I’m nervous, sweaty, and as a watery body, always just kind of tacky.”



Roger. Penrose.

Full stop.

That is not a problem.

The problem is when credentialed scientists fail in their critical duty…as scientists.

Like our dear WHO team.

Let us not forget about the environmental scientists who many on the right believe are part of a grand conspiracy.

And of course the researchers/doctors who specialize in sexuality related issues… they’re also part of a grand conspiracy, I hear.

:rofl::+1:t4: I agree.

i think you’re forgetting the hype that some science gets, which causes some to believe the hype created mostly be reporters taking extraordinary claims our of context within a study to make those hyped up claims which then become the basis for political action.

It is absolutely THE problem.

But unfortunately to explain to you why would require more than the Twitter-length posts of which you are so fond.


Who could predict that life could be so complicated.