There is no such thing as "trusting the science." Rather, it is not a what but a who we place our trust in. Anyone who says "trust the science" actually means "trust the scientists," whether they know it or not.
And scientists are people like anyone else. Capable of biases, corruption, incompetence, and being incorrect. But the science worshipers do not understand this, they see "the science" as infallible.
@houseoftolstoy
Except people who say trust the science do not mean trust the scientist
They mean trust the news article written by a politically charged activist who maybe red a research paper that was released only because a politically charged company paid for a one-sided research by a scientist, who knew he won't get paid again, if he finds the opposite result...
So yeah.... I don't trust the science.
@LukeAlmighty @houseoftolstoy Modern "science" is just whatever government institution says is fact. Real science is supposed to be a free market of ideas, so to speak. While there is one objective truth, scientists are supposed to compete on who is right. This is the way it's been done for thousands of years, but now it's whatever suits government interests.
@LukeAlmighty @houseoftolstoy this system has bought everyone... from priests to scientists... it has even bought originally anti-system elements like anarchists.. yet it has one weakness: personal property.. this is untouchable.. it is the sacred cow.. the only possible change to this system is to touch the property of the richest - of course that's not a new idea, that's normal marxism - or adapt to it.. go along with the system and loyally proclaim "truths" that one doesn't believe, but by repeating them he proves his loyalty.. I don't know if it makes sense to change it or adapt to it.. a change would lead to anything other than some rich being replaced by others.. the adaptation is not my cup of tea.. or, just watch it as a theatre? I guess the latter.. it's actually a wonderful comedy, tragedy, horror, drama, sci-fi, surrealism and sometimes even poetry.. and it's just around the corner :-)
@LukeAlmighty Good point there too. You are right that it is not always the scientists, though in some cases when one is in line with the journalist's thinking without coercion. But perhaps there are more cases of journalists doing what journalists do, whether because they are knowingly lying or that they have a big enough ego to think they actually understand the scientific method when they do not.