>> [the word] [of [a] Scientist] has become too much of a powerful political force these days > Who? Science is a process, not a group, so who in specific has

>> [the word] [of [a] Scientist] has become too much of a powerful political force these days > Who? Science is a process, not a group, so who in specific has too much political force? Does everyone doing science have political force? Be precise in your language, please! Science has become politicized, you can see it in most every HN thread on certain science-related topics (like this one, for example). Typically, the quality of disagreements are similar to what you might find on /r/politics, because both sides are not speaking scientifically, which is a requirement for actual scientific discussions (there is lot more complexity going on under the covers at the psychological level, but good luck having an abstract discussion on that during an object-level argument when the abstract phenomenon is the unrealized basis of the very argument). The media throws around "scientific" memes, and calls them science, and actual scientists stand on the sidelines and say nothing. Actual scientists who disagree even in part with these scientific memes are censored, or worse. In turn this sows distrust in the public, which lessens the beneficial effects of beneficial scientific knowledge in society. The recommended response to this seems to be doubling down on propaganda/groupthink/mockery and scientific authoritarianism. To me, this seems suboptimal, but who am I to complain - I'm just going to mostly sit on the sidelines and watch the whole thing melt down into chaos (how far down the path we are is unknown, but we sure as hell have increasing chaos), and occasionally post a forum comment here and there. From my vantage point, this seems like one of those weird cultural trends that comes along every so often which cannot be stopped with reason, you just have to let human nature play itself out.