I read: > We might require that they have reasonable arguments concerning the theory or data’s flaws that do not presuppose, as some anti-vaccine arguments do,

I read: > We might require that they have reasonable arguments concerning the theory or data’s flaws that do not presuppose, as some anti-vaccine arguments do, the existence of a large-scale conspiracy to distort the truth. Fair enough. Then the _very next sentence_, I read: > And we would be well within our rights to demand that they argue in good faith and not...as professional water-muddiers, following a playbook first written by cigarette companies attempting to obfuscate a known connection between smoking and cancer. Wait, we're not allowed to muddy the waters with allegations of conspiracies, and yet, it is admitted that conspiracies exist? I mean, not just the tobacco industry, but HN just discussed a conspiracy by the sugar industry. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26126183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26126183) I understand that strong allegations require strong evidence. But to say that strong allegations will be dismissed even though the evidence is strong is an admission of being disingenuous. Also, "science" is the process, not the body of Knowledge or the consensus. (https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/what-science-is/ https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/what-science-is/) On top of that, people will often test only one factor, such as the effectiveness of double masks in blocking aerosols, and then claim that since double masks are better, we should all wear two masks. But that ignores the other factors. In science, _true_ science, all factors matter! (https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matter/ https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte...) They matter even if they don't because you _never know_ if they actually matter until you test them. And to go even further, why in the world should we trust the scientific consensus when in the face of all of the scandals in the scientific community? Besides the outright (admitted) lies, or the failure of "experts" or "scientists" to be apolitical, there are two more scandals: the Replication Crisis and the Retraction Crisis. (https://gavinhoward.com/2019/12/replication-and-retraction-crises-in-science/ https://gavinhoward.com/2019/12/replication-and-retraction-c...) "Trusting the Science" is not complicated; it's impossible. Trusting the _process_ of science, going so far as to learn statistics, how to read scientific papers, and to test hypotheses for yourself, is hard but not too complicated. And it is what I do.