5 minutes ago, kwilco said:

 

Ironically, citing concerns raised by scientists, reported by journalists, debated publicly, and studied academically is evidence that the system is self-correcting, not religious.

 

Incorrect, so far the system has not corrected its corruption, influence peddling practices and unethical conflicts of interests. Medical professionals who question this pseudo-science are excommunicated (c.f. the doctors "discredited by the medical community") and therefore it is, for all intents and purposes, a cult in the strictest sense.

 

On the topic of Science™, I have just watched this excellent seven-minute video on the mask mandates during Covid, behind which there was simply no actual science:

 

 

 

52 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Incorrect, so far the system has not corrected its corruption, influence peddling practices and unethical conflicts of interests. Medical professionals who question this pseudo-science are excommunicated (c.f. the doctors "discredited by the medical community") and therefore it is, for all intents and purposes, a cult in the strictest sense.

 

On the topic of Science™, I have just watched this excellent seven-minute video on the mask mandates during Covid, behind which there was simply no actual science:

 

 

 

 

You’ve just demonstrated exactly the problem my post was describing.
You’re demanding a static, black-and-white outcome (“the system has not corrected corruption, therefore science is a cult”) while completely missing how the scientific method actually works. Science doesn’t “purge corruption once and for all” like a morality play — it detects, challenges, corrects, and refines claims over time. That process is messy by design. Calling that a “cult” is like calling a court system a cult because appeals exist.
The phrase “doctors discredited by the medical community” isn’t excommunication — it’s peer review and evidence failure. Medicine isn’t a democracy of opinions; it’s a hierarchy of evidence. If someone’s claims don’t survive replication, data scrutiny, or clinical outcomes, they don’t get a free pass just because they wear a white coat. That’s scepticism in action — the exact opposite of religion.
As for your seven-minute Twitter video: it proves nothing except your willingness to accept unvetted opinion as evidence. A short clip about masks during COVID is not a refutation of the scientific method, epidemiology, or medicine as a whole. It’s a classic conspiracy move: cherry-pick a narrow, contentious policy debate and pretend it invalidates decades of methodology, data, and outcomes. It doesn’t.
Most tellingly, you never engage with the process I explained — hypothesis, testing, replication, revision. Instead, you jump straight to belief. That’s not critical thinking; that’s grievance shopping dressed up as scepticism.
In short: you didn’t challenge the argument — you confirmed it.
 

 

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

 

It was an exercise in submission and humiliation… and the compliance rate was depressingly high.

 

Agreed, and I ashamedly but very unwillingly complied  too at the height of the Covidiocy...  you simply could not be outside without a muzzle on ,  it was a horrendous  time  heads should roll for the damage caused to all parts of society during those dark times.

10 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You’re demanding a static, black-and-white outcome (“the system has not corrected corruption, therefore science is a cult”) while completely missing how the scientific method actually works. Science doesn’t “purge corruption once and for all” like a morality play — it detects, challenges, corrects, and refines claims over time.

 

The Science™ takes money and does what its master tells it to do. The article below is from 2013 and so far, nothing has been done to change this state of affairs.

 

Reports: Emails show alleged pay-to-play between drug companies, FDA

 

An Ohio attorney has obtained emails that show that pharmaceutical companies have been paying tens of thousands of dollars to attend meetings of a panel of academics and health industry regulators that advise the Food and Drug Administration on its drug policies for painkillers, according to multiple news reports.

[…]

"These e-mails help explain the disastrous decisions the FDA's analgesic division has made over the last 10 years," Craig Mayton, an attorney from Columbus, Ohio, who requested the emails from University of Washington, told the Washington Post. "Instead of protecting the public health, the FDA has been allowing the drug companies to pay for a seat at a small table where all the rules were written."

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/reports-emails-show-alleged-pay-to-play-between-drug-companies-fda/

 

13 minutes ago, johng said:

heads should roll for the damage caused to all parts of society during those dark times.

 

I agree.

Ohh dear things have gone astray.

error

 

27 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

he Science™ takes money and does what its master tells it to do

Who pays, and when did they start? - Was Newton on the payroll?

 

How about your sources? How are they financed?

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Who pays, and when did they start? - Was Newton on the payroll?

 

How about your sources? How are they financed?

 

Maybe at least 1/3 of the conspiracy guys work for the government.

 

Mirage Men was a good movie. Doesn't seem to be available anymore on Youtube. But govt agents started messing with a guy who was snooping around too much.  

 

8 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Maybe at least 1/3 of the conspiracy guys work for the government.

 

Mirage Men was a good movie. Doesn't seem to be available anymore on Youtube. But govt agents started messing with a guy who was snooping around too much.  

 

 

Which government? What has that got to do with the topic, apart from being a transgression of the scientific method?

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

 

Which government? What has that got to do with the topic, apart from being a transgression of the scientific method?

 

Sorry, I haven't followed the thread too closely, so I haven't have interjected.

Just ignore. 

 

Much of what we think of as science just ain't so. Where do most of us get our understanding from ? Someone tells us. And how do they know? Someone tells them. And how do they know? $$$.

 

Medical science is just about the pits. Just so much hand-me-down, make believe  rubbish. And we can add covid masks to that list. I only put on a mask once during covid; and that was to get into a bank. And yer know what; I feel bad, even now, that I had to do it.

 

These know-nothing white-coats that pushed the masks, distancing, and vaxxes should be sweeping the streets for their terrible sins. Preferably shackled, with pink jump suits on; for all to see. with 'I was wrong about covid' on the back and front. And the people that pushed the needle into babes toddlers and kids. In the monkey with them.

 

 

this shows what happens when you let conspiracy theorists into government

 

 

27 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Much of what we think of as science just ain't so. Where do most of us get our understanding from ? Someone tells us. And how do they know? Someone tells them. And how do they know? $$$.

 

Medical science is just about the pits. Just so much hand-me-down, make believe  rubbish. And we can add covid masks to that list. I only put on a mask once during covid; and that was to get into a bank. And yer know what; I feel bad, even now, that I had to do it.

 

These know-nothing white-coats that pushed the masks, distancing, and vaxxes should be sweeping the streets for their terrible sins. Preferably shackled, with pink jump suits on; for all to see. with 'I was wrong about covid' on the back and front. And the people that pushed the needle into babes toddlers and kids. In the monkey with them.

 

 

 

 

This is a perfect illustration of confusing personal resentment with critical thinking.
You're confusing messenger and message! - Science isn’t “someone tells us” all the way down — that’s religion. Science is methods, data, replication, correction, and argument, most of it publicly documented and constantly challenged. The fact that results change over time isn’t corruption; it’s literally how science works. If it didn’t update, then you’d have a cult.
As for “I wore a mask once and feel bad about it”: that’s not evidence, it’s autobiography. Your feelings are not a dataset, and your inconvenience is not a refutation of epidemiology. Millions of measurements, studies, and comparisons across countries don’t evaporate because someone resents being told what to do.
Calling scientists “know-nothing white-coats” while confidently rejecting decades of medical research — without data, models, or alternatives — isn’t scepticism. It’s cosplay rebellion. Science doesn’t demand belief, obedience, or purity; it asks for evidence better than anecdotes and anger.
If this is the standard of argument — vibes, rage, and punishment fantasies — then yes, it does explain why the scientific method feels threatening. It requires discipline, not outrage, and humility instead of certainty.

 
 

10 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Calling scientists “know-nothing white-coats”

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Scientists are not "know nothings".

But some science is corrupted.

Because there are billions of dollars at stake sometimes.

So they would rather fudge the data and stay rich than produce accurate science.

 

It's the way of the world.

It's naive to think otherwise.

 

That's why there are contradictory scientific studies on almost everything.

 

 

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

That's why there are contradictory scientific studies on almost everything.

 

I went into ChatGPT and did the following exercise to prove my point:

 

 

Study 1:

 

 

Study 2 - Complete opposite conclusion of Study 1

 

 

37 minutes ago, kwilco said:

 

 

This is a perfect illustration of confusing personal resentment with critical thinking.
You're confusing messenger and message! - Science isn’t “someone tells us” all the way down — that’s religion. Science is methods, data, replication, correction, and argument, most of it publicly documented and constantly challenged. The fact that results change over time isn’t corruption; it’s literally how science works. If it didn’t update, then you’d have a cult.
As for “I wore a mask once and feel bad about it”: that’s not evidence, it’s autobiography. Your feelings are not a dataset, and your inconvenience is not a refutation of epidemiology. Millions of measurements, studies, and comparisons across countries don’t evaporate because someone resents being told what to do.
Calling scientists “know-nothing white-coats” while confidently rejecting decades of medical research — without data, models, or alternatives — isn’t scepticism. It’s cosplay rebellion. Science doesn’t demand belief, obedience, or purity; it asks for evidence better than anecdotes and anger.
If this is the standard of argument — vibes, rage, and punishment fantasies — then yes, it does explain why the scientific method feels threatening. It requires discipline, not outrage, and humility instead of certainty.
 

My take Sir:

 

I can recall the white-coats, and the TV percenters, 40 years back, talking about the coming Ice Age. 'The science is settled' could be heard every time the box was turned on. Later it switched to global warming. That was a bit presumptuous, so it gradually morphed into Climate Change. Can't go much wrong with that. A lot of the science went into the bin with the climate propaganda.

 

Why do people believe there was a pandemic called COVID-19? Because they were told so. And that led them to wear masks and roll up their sleeves. Turned out that a lot of white-coats were wrong.

 

Did the US drop atomic bombs on Japan? Yes!! Of course they did. Everyone knows that. I've looked at the evidence, and I don't think they did.

 

Coughs and sneezes spread diseases. Well they don't as it goes.

 

Most of what we think we know, gets told to us in the first 25 years of life. Much of that stays with us forever. Much of it nonsense.

42 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

I went into ChatGPT and did the following exercise to prove my point:

 

 

Study 1:

 

 

Study 2 - Complete opposite conclusion of Study 1

 

 

 

 

Your response perfectly demonstrates the problem it claims to expose.
Of course, individual studies can reach different conclusions — that’s not a flaw in science, it’s how science works. A single study proves almost nothing on its own. Science advances through replication, accumulation of evidence, meta-analysis, and continual challenge, not by cherry-picking two papers and declaring “gotcha”.
What’s being implied here — that “contradictory studies” somehow invalidate science — is a category error. If anything, the existence of disagreement shows the scientific method functioning, not failing. The method isn’t designed to deliver instant, eternal truths (like conspiracy theories), it’s designed to reduce error over time.
Using ChatGPT to pull two opposing studies doesn’t “prove a point” — it proves a lack of understanding of:
•    how evidence is weighed,
•    why study quality matters,
•    what sample size, methodology, funding, and replication mean,
•    and why consensus emerges from bodies of evidence, not screenshots.
And no, one study about “butter” (or masks, or vaccines, or anything else) does not overturn decades of converging research. That expectation — that science must be static, unanimous, and final — is precisely the non-scientific thinking this thread is about.
In short: confusing disagreement within science with evidence against science isn’t critical thinking — it’s misunderstanding the process entirely.
 

8 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Much of it nonsense.

 

Some of it is. Not all of it.

 

You're adding to the confusion with your biased inaccurate cartoonish perceptions that all doctors are bumbling idiots.

 

You are taking a complex nuanced situation and making it worse. 

 

16 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

My take Sir:

 

I can recall the white-coats, and the TV percenters, 40 years back, talking about the coming Ice Age. 'The science is settled' could be heard every time the box was turned on. Later it switched to global warming. That was a bit presumptuous, so it gradually morphed into Climate Change. Can't go much wrong with that. A lot of the science went into the bin with the climate propaganda.

 

Why do people believe there was a pandemic called COVID-19? Because they were told so. And that led them to wear masks and roll up their sleeves. Turned out that a lot of white-coats were wrong.

 

Did the US drop atomic bombs on Japan? Yes!! Of course they did. Everyone knows that. I've looked at the evidence, and I don't think they did.

 

Coughs and sneezes spread diseases. Well they don't as it goes.

 

Most of what we think we know, gets told to us in the first 25 years of life. Much of that stays with us forever. Much of it nonsense.

 

 

This post is a textbook example of confusing personal grievance with critical thinking.
Science isn’t a collection of things you “were told on TV” — it’s a method for testing claims against reality. The fact that understanding improves over time (ice age → warming → climate change) isn’t evidence of failure; it’s evidence that the scientific method is working. Updating conclusions when better data arrives is literally the opposite of propaganda. BTW – man-made global warming was first hypothesised in the late 19th century.
Saying “I don’t think the atomic bombs were dropped” after 80 years of physical evidence, records, photographs, radiation signatures, eyewitnesses, and Japanese documentation isn’t scepticism — it’s magical thinking. Declaring that coughs and sneezes don’t spread disease simply contradicts centuries of microbiology, epidemiology, and experimental evidence. At some point, disbelief stops being insight and becomes denial.
This entire argument rests on a single flawed premise: “If I didn’t personally verify it, it must be nonsense.” That isn’t independent thinking — it’s the Dunning–Kruger effect in action. Expertise is dismissed, evidence is ignored, and confidence fills the gap left by understanding.
Science doesn’t ask for faith. It asks for evidence, logic, and the humility to accept that reality doesn’t care what any of us “feel” is true.
  

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Some of it is. Not all of it.

 

You're adding to the confusion with your biased inaccurate cartoonish perceptions that all doctors are bumbling idiots.

 

You are taking a complex nuanced situation and making it worse. 

 

What complex situation?? Good health is the most natural thing. It's white-coats that make it complicated. Most of them could do with some education.

 

I'm not saying ALL the doctors are bumbling idiots. There are obviously some who care more about their patients than the almighty $$$. And some do speak out. Full marks for them. Respect.

 

Nature has the answers we seek.

6 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Saying “I don’t think the atomic bombs were dropped” after 80 years of physical evidence, records, photographs, radiation signatures, eyewitnesses, and Japanese documentation isn’t scepticism — it’s magical thinking. Declaring that coughs and sneezes don’t spread disease simply contradicts centuries of microbiology, epidemiology, and experimental evidence.

Penty of evidence that says there was NOT an atomic bomb dropped on Japan.

 

I have read the evidence that 'coughs and sneezes do NOT spread diseases.

 

If you believe either of the above, then it is you Sir, who needs to reevaluate.

 

''''Declaring that coughs and sneezes don’t spread disease simply contradicts centuries of microbiology, epidemiology, and experimental evidence.''''

 

You simply don't know what you are on about.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

Who pays, and when did they start? - Was Newton on the payroll?

 

Look up "conflict of interest" and the issues it entails, namely from an ethical standpoint.

 

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

How about your sources? How are they financed?

 

The New York Times and CBS are mostly funded by reader revenue and advertising, and their shares are held by investors such as Vanguard and BlackRock.

38 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Penty of evidence that says there was NOT an atomic bomb dropped on Japan.

 

That's interesting, would you mind expanding a little?

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Look up "conflict of interest" and the issues it entails, namely from an ethical standpoint.

How do you fit Newton into that?

 

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

The New York Times and CBS are mostly funded by reader revenue and advertising, and their shares are held by investors such as Vanguard and BlackRock.

So you think funding started in the 20th century?

Here’s a Dummies Edition of the scientific method adapted from the one I give my first years; it’s also a guide to how conspiracy theorists get it wrong.

 

1. Observe something
Notice something real in the natural world.
Conspiracy version: Starts with a conclusion, then goes hunting for anything that might vaguely fit it.

 

2. Ask a clear question
“What is happening, and why?”
Conspiracy version: “Who’s lying to us and how deep does it go?” (Answer preloaded.)

3. Do background research
Check what experts already know and why.
Conspiracy version: Scroll social media until someone angry agrees with them, then stops.

4. Form a hypothesis
A testable explanation that could be proven wrong.
Conspiracy version: Creates an idea that can never be disproven (“If there’s no evidence, that proves the cover-up”).

5. Test with evidence
Use data, experiments, and measurements.
Conspiracy version: Uses anecdotes, vibes, screenshots, and “a bloke I know.”

6. Analyse all results
Look at all the data, especially the inconvenient bits.
Conspiracy version: Deletes anything that contradicts the belief and calls it “fake science.”

7. Draw conclusions
Accept what the evidence shows — even if it’s boring.
Conspiracy version: Rejects the evidence and attacks the people presenting it.

8. Replicate and invite scrutiny
Real science welcomes criticism and replication.
Conspiracy version: Claims persecution the moment anyone asks a question.

9. Update conclusions when new evidence appears
Changing your mind is a strength, not a failure.
Conspiracy version: Never changes their mind — because being wrong would hurt their identity.

10. Learn what “hypothesis”, “theory”, and “fact” actually mean (because this always goes wrong)
•    Hypothesis: A testable idea that can be proven wrong.
•    Theory: A hypothesis that survived repeated testing and evidence (e.g. gravity, evolution, germ theory).
•    Fact: An observed measurement — not a belief, feeling, or Facebook post.
If you think “theory” means “guess” or “fact” means “what I’m convinced of", you’re not questioning science — you’re just misunderstanding the words.

 

Final Reminder
Being sceptical (in science or philosophy) means questioning everything — including yourself.
If your belief never changes no matter how much evidence appears, you’re not doing science.
 

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

adapted from the one I give my first years

 

I figured you were a teacher. What's my grade?

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

How do you fit Newton into that?

 

I don't, teacher.

 

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

So you think funding started in the 20th century?

 

Step down from your pedestal and try to use common sense. From Forbes:

 

The Biopharmaceutical Industry Provides 75% Of The FDA's Drug Review Budget. Is This A Problem?

 

Caroline Chen of ProPublica has written a provocative article challenging the objectivity of the FDA in its approval of new drugs. Entitled: “FDA Repays Industry by Rushing Risky Drugs to Market”, Chen contends that the agency is beholden to the biopharmaceutical industry which pays three quarters of the FDA’s budget used for the drug review process. This is an astounding number. Is any other federal agency supported to this extent by the industry it regulates? Given this level of support, one might assume that the FDA would bend over backwards to meet the needs of its financial backers.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2018/06/28/the-biopharmaceutical-industry-provides-75-of-the-fdas-drug-review-budget-is-this-a-problem/

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I figured you were a teacher. What's my grade?

You haven't even registered – to get a grade, you have to do the work

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I don't, teacher.

 

 

Step down from your pedestal and try to use common sense. From Forbes:

 

The Biopharmaceutical Industry Provides 75% Of The FDA's Drug Review Budget. Is This A Problem?

 

Caroline Chen of ProPublica has written a provocative article challenging the objectivity of the FDA in its approval of new drugs. Entitled: “FDA Repays Industry by Rushing Risky Drugs to Market”, Chen contends that the agency is beholden to the biopharmaceutical industry which pays three quarters of the FDA’s budget used for the drug review process. This is an astounding number. Is any other federal agency supported to this extent by the industry it regulates? Given this level of support, one might assume that the FDA would bend over backwards to meet the needs of its financial backers.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2018/06/28/the-biopharmaceutical-industry-provides-75-of-the-fdas-drug-review-budget-is-this-a-problem/

 You STILL don't grasp even the basics, do you? No hypothesis, no evidence and you don't even know how to use citations – you are still just cherry-picking without any conclusions. - hopeless case.