> Your post is also lacking many concrete details so it's not adding to the conversation. Your post is nonsense in context. The top post provided no concrete d

> Your post is also lacking many concrete details so it's not adding to the conversation. Your post is nonsense in context. The top post provided no concrete details, so what details could the GP use but to quote it directly? It was a non-falsifiable theory devoid of evidence; by their logic, we can't listen to experts because they're experts. All research is subject to systemic and directed bias, discernible without actually looking at that research. It's dumb and not remotely concrete. And it's certainly a time honored diversionary and denialist tactic. > Bias in the researchers is a very big problem in all scientific fields. When you're trained to be a hammer and all you work with are hammers, and you get your funding from the hammer use-case fund, you certainly aren't out looking for screwdriver use-cases. Please keep the discussion to substantive counterpoints other than ad hominems. I'd suggest maybe doing a little self reflection before posting? This entire thread is fundamentally an ad hominem argument, and this quote just doubles down.