I would consider myself one.. I believe in the idea of science but not the "hollywood" science we have today... By "hollywood" I mean the part it plays in the "movie"/"production" we have going on these days...

Everything is a movie these days and nothing is organic... It will take 100 years to figure out the real history of humanity and the world after this is over if we can figure it out at all...

Everything we think and believe is fake because the context we have is not accurate on purpose...

Anybody agree or disagree...

I believe in the process of science but I don't believe in the "science is settled" crowd or the politicized science. There is a replication crisis in science right now in that something like 2/3rds of scientific studies cannot be replicated.

Nobody asked.
Nobody cares.

Sadly it's difficult to secure funding to replicate any research, the researchers can't get traction when looking for that money.

Science deniers is proof that many people have sh!t for brains.

Although some is, not all science is "rocket science." Science is systematic and methodical observation. It requires no black magic, no kool aid, but it does require the ability to think analytically, an attribute sadly lacking in nearly half of all Americans today.

Well said...

Keith

Agree.

Fish on...

Todd

What is not lacking today is the tweaking of the said science to fit a political agenda or further divide the people.

100%.... BUT, CNN tells them different....

Both of these.

Particularly what FHP said that a lot of research has been subject to meta-analysis and a lot of studies have not had outcomes replicated. It is important to review what is contributing to this and explore limitations and even potential unmentioned limitations.


-Steamy

That's been going on since forever. Think "alchemy."

A lot of science is not replicated because when you read some studies, and possess a clear and analytical mind, the result is so clearly obvious that only a dimwit would think it needs to be replicated. That would be the science that is most likely, but not absolutely, settled science. The results of science are generally a snapshot in time. It might be settled science for now, and then another aspect comes along, and it turns out it wasn't settled after all. Some science deniers (who are dumbshits) are binary folks who require absolute certainty, not understanding or accepting that many, if not most, things in this world have at least some element of uncertainty. And then some things, like the acceleration of gravity being 32'/s/s at sea level on planet Earth is settled science. For the time being.

I am sure Salmo will agree that many of the things were learned in school about salmon and steelhead (and other fish) have been shown to be wrong with the collection of additional data. Too many folks, and we worked with some of them, learn someting once, accept it as settled absolute fact, and won't accept new information. For me, the beauty of the world is that it changes (or really, I change) as I learn more. Apparently, that is a rare trait.

You should also note my post from another thread where I talked about research not requiring peer-review in order to be valid.

I agree (in part) that some research also does not need to be subject to replication but it is most prudent to do so. One must factor both the bias of the researcher and the interpreter. The peer-review process, meta-analysis/replication only strengthens the research.

There always is a degree of uncertainty with many things, especially when stakeholders funding/generating the “science” have a clear agenda. When there is something to be gained by the research is when skepticism and criticism should be at the forefront.


-Steamy

And with that salmo you have made everyone that has decided not to be vaxxed correct. Maybe some would find it better to wait while others decide now is the time. That has always been the beauty part of the free world USA.
Now some have decided 18 months is enough science to require all people to be vaxxed. Now that in my mind is NOT a free country.
My whole point has been. If you feel the vaccination works for you, and you are 100% confident in its ability to protect you, why care what others do....
Is it that you don't trust that it protects you? If not then why get the Vax?
Is it because CNN told you too?

I find it rather unsettling that even if someone thinks that just because a person argues the fact that the Vax should be by choice, that they are labeled as unvawwed and an anti vaxxer. It really shows the stupidity of those that do not believe in freedom of choice...

Salmo, the replication crisis is not the studies do not get attempts to replicate them, it's that when the attempt is made that they get a different result.

Nobody expects absolute certainly, but the same people that push "trust the science" often have no real data to support their claims. People like Fauci says to question him is questioning science are painting people as science deniers. When Fauci, lies and flip-flops and of course can be questioned. Good science can stand questioning, it's a good sign that when you question the science and it stands up that it is likely true. When you have to resort to fallacious arguments, name calling, painting the questioners as denying or outright censoring them it is likely false.

The biggest science deniers are those from the left, denying basic biology of the number of genders & evolutional biology because they are politically incorrect.