I'd suggest reading some scientific papers before going too far in that direction. I've read a lot of them. These scientists routinely do things like cite paper

I'd suggest reading some scientific papers before going too far in that direction. I've read a lot of them. These scientists routinely do things like cite papers that contradict the claim the citation is meant to support. They write papers based on circular logic. They conflate simulations with reality, they make claims that have no basis in biological science. They do not know what the false positive rate on COVID testing is, but are happy to draw conclusions that flatly contradict decades of biological understanding on the basis of data analysis that critically depends on knowing the correct value. They write models in C that are filled with memory corruption bugs and race conditions. When the results randomly change from run to run they claim that it's an experiment and so averaging the results makes it all perfectly fine. And when professional programmers tell them that incorporating memory corruption into their calculations is not fine, they assert those programmers don't understand science (see: https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid-sim/issues/165 https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid-sim/issues/165) And that's just the scientists. Public health officials like Fauci have lied to the public and then admitted doing so, more than once! That isn't the data evolving, that's them deciding to change their story and explain that the previous one was a lie. What are we to make of such people? You believe "experts know nothing" is insanity. I've read what those people are writing and am absolutely sure they know nothing, because if they did, they wouldn't keep engaging in these illegitimate, unscientific and desperately concerning practices.