Originally Posted by furloughfuntime

This is so devoid of any relevant context that I'm reluctant to even respond. The fact that you had to reach back to views from several centuries ago, propagated by institutions that were not bound by the scientific method as we know it today, in order to justify hyperbolic and superstitious skepticism against scientists today is at once pathetic, hilarious, and sad. The scientific method as we would know it is first recognizable in the 18th/19th centuries. Every example you cite comes from before that time, and is thus a ridiculous comparison without contextualizing the examples you cite. You did not, and I don't think you could if you tried, because this is a patently ridiculous argument.

Comparing the peer reviewed, empirically based scientific process of the 21st to what were religious worldviews of the past is asinine. Galileo knew the heliocentric model was correct in the 17th century, but was suppressed by the religious/political(really the same thing at that point in history) in the 16th century, ie the Catholic Church. You know what does sound familiar to this? Political powers playing games to suppress inconvenient truths.

The effort to dismiss evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific study because it hurts your feelings is not valid skepticism. The refusal to confront empirical, objective evidence and choosing to instead traffic in conspiracies, misrepresent information, take facts out of context, and refuse to respond to new information does not constitute valid skepticism.

Scientists do fail, that is true. But science is based on peer-reviewed fact-checking and skepticism towards the findings of colleagues, a process that rarely plays out in public view and almost never takes the kind of political charge we see in covid. It's unfortunate that it has, and that scientifically illiterate people have become so emboldened in nonsensical views.