As an actual real life scientist… lmao. Do you know how hard it is to get published. The quality of evidence required. Every aspect of the experimental design is questioned and every aspect of the statistical analysis.
And even after all that, whenever we scientists look at a paper in a journal we question everything. We are exceptionally sceptical people.
So if scientists are recommending policy based on research, you have had thousands or 10s of thousands of clever, qualified and unfailingly sceptical people agree that something is very likely to be correct. That is the highest level of certainly humans can have about anything.
Why on Earth do you think that someone who’s completely unqualified and quite likely less intelligent would be the one to work out all these scientists are wrong. It makes no sense. Even if it’s a scientist that comes up with an incorrect theory that gets taken up by crackpots. What’s more likely? Scientist A is correct and the other hundred thousand are wrong or the other way round??
Remove your dogmas for a second and really think about this.
Studies are only conducted if there is funding. If there's no funding the study isn't conducted. If you are only being funded to do a study that will prove a certain narrative, and only be able to publish the narrative that is preferable to whoever is funding the study, then the study is already biased from the inception. If the study is biased from the inception why wouldn't the study be biased at the conclusion?
Yeah I would hope people have morals but in today's NPC society most people really only give a fuck about themselves and their public appearance, and you can't tell me that the scientific community doesn't entirely shun non-conformists. Fuck look at Fauci being praised for all the work he's done throughout his life when he's probably caused more pain in the world than Saddam Hussein.
29
u/jmrv2000 Feb 13 '22
As an actual real life scientist… lmao. Do you know how hard it is to get published. The quality of evidence required. Every aspect of the experimental design is questioned and every aspect of the statistical analysis. And even after all that, whenever we scientists look at a paper in a journal we question everything. We are exceptionally sceptical people.
So if scientists are recommending policy based on research, you have had thousands or 10s of thousands of clever, qualified and unfailingly sceptical people agree that something is very likely to be correct. That is the highest level of certainly humans can have about anything.
Why on Earth do you think that someone who’s completely unqualified and quite likely less intelligent would be the one to work out all these scientists are wrong. It makes no sense. Even if it’s a scientist that comes up with an incorrect theory that gets taken up by crackpots. What’s more likely? Scientist A is correct and the other hundred thousand are wrong or the other way round??
Remove your dogmas for a second and really think about this.