Originally Posted by Duffman

Sounds like you're trying to justify cherry picking what 'science' you believe or cast doubt on entire professions that you personally know nothing about. What you're saying is "when someone is a terrible shot, the safest place to be is right in front of the target." Scientists are sighting in their rifle. The first few shots may be off, but you'll be standing dead in the cross hairs before you know it.

I know a few people who've gone through the peer review process to get published and it's a very thorough process. The reviewers are randomized so that they can't be corrupted by business, but they have to be subject matter experts in the specific field because a scientist with a different specialization, let alone a lay person, would not be able to properly interpret the data. Then once the article is released, everyone's professional reputation is on the line. It's not the media, there's a very high standard and good reasons to not screw up.

The nature of science means that scientists are supposed to disagree with each other and run experiments to prove/disprove their theories, which is fine if it's outside 'the consensus' as long as they can support their beliefs with real data that is reviewed properly. This is why scientists who publish data outside the peer review process are largely shunned; they're short circuiting the process and using their credentials to get mass exposure with people who don't know any better. The scientists who have a consensus have it because they understand the material as well as you would if you had a graduate degree in the subject matter. Don't use the fact that scientists disagree and test alternate theories as a means to undermine the profession and what they provide.

Think about what science would be like without the peer review process. Scientists would just be technical corporate lawyers, used to spin anything whatever direction they wanted. They could be used to prove that it's ok to smoke, or that workers didn't get cancer from asbestos in their factory, or that the high cancer rate in some town wasn't from the industrial complex dumping in the river, or Roundup is perfectly safe for kids, etc, etc.

Believe it or not, scientists are just normal people, who are far more concerned with holes in their data or methods than anyone's agenda, while making less money than a regional CA. If you want to trust some talking head in the media with a liberal arts degree, whose never been in a lab, and is driving a Maserati with money they made towing somebody's political line, then that's your choice, but I think it's ill advised.

For example, if 99 financial advisors tell you that shorting Tesla right now is a bad idea and 1 tells you it's going to make you rich, would you listen to the 1 guy? They're all experts with grad degrees, who make a living obsessing on this stuff 10 hours a day and you just read a few MarketWatch articles. You can do whatever you want, but at the end of the day, you're the one whose going to pay for it. So, as someone who admittedly hasn't attained the education or devoted the time and resources into market research, why would you bet on the 1 guy against the 99? My belief is that it's mostly just a way to push your own beliefs and not come across as someone who doesn't like the data based on emotional or moral reasons or because the media you listen to, which are master manipulators, have spun the 1 advisor's narrative and repeated it so many times that you haven't taken the time to adequately question the source data.