I find that the kind of people who obsess the conspiracy of "alternative facts" are the same people who uncritically take everything presented by modern science as truth. Except when it comes to economics of course!

▲

hombre_fatal 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People who question modern science don't have a higher epistemic standard.

They just offer something worse, like a youtuber who convinced them that eating plants was bad for them.

	▲	simianwords 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>People who question modern science don't have a higher epistemic standard. I hope this changes. There is much need to question modern science using a higher epistemic standard.

▲

perching_aix 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you picture millions reading science journals, or are you willfully conflating media reporting as what's "presented by modern science as truth"?

In my impression people peddling distrust in modern science are not exactly in it to improve its honesty, nor are they calling out genuine gaps most of the time. It's more a side effect if and when it happens at all, with the actual goal being political control play instead.

	▲	simianwords 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> In my impression people peddling distrust in modern science are not exactly in it to improve its honesty, nor are they calling out genuine gaps most of the time. I agree, but in this case I'm trying to be the person who's trying to improve its honesty. There's so many lies in modern non fiction (and science) and I hope they will all be uncovered soon and a nice post-mortem will take place. It is important to understand how much we were misled. This is after all the scientific process and it will continue and get better - I have no doubt in it. I'm trying to clarify my position here: I won't name them but there are obvious things that non fiction (by elite academics) got wrong before but were only uncovered as wrong when society evolved to understand the subject matter intricately enough to criticise it. Until then we all had to pretend as if the elite academics pushing their jargon laded slop in non fiction columns as obviously correct. I don't want to go on a tangent here but an important part of uncovering truth is by the emergent property of a critical mass of people understanding a concept. Society itself takes part in uncovering truth. Until then elite academics either produce gems or slop because there's only so much intelligence that comes from a single person (or a few people).