> Evidence is collected and evaluated in an unbiased, objective manner, and those methods have to be available to other scientists for replication. This is the

> Evidence is collected and evaluated in an unbiased, objective manner, and those methods have to be available to other scientists for replication. This is the ideal but its not common. > Experts have advanced degrees, published research, and years of experience in their sub-field Appeal to authority. Replication crisis. It's fairly clear at this point that getting published in scientific journals has little to do with expertise. > Thinking one can “do their research” on scientific topics, such as climate change or mRNA vaccines, is to fool oneself. Clear agenda. > Their findings have to pass peer review, where other experts evaluate their work before it can be published. Again, there is a known replication crisis. > Most people seem to understand that science is trustworthy. Science is not trustworthy, its not a monolith. Theories that have been tested and replicated are useful to better our understanding of the natural world. > Unfortunately, the dangerous mixture of confirmation bias, misplaced trust, limited knowledge, and overconfidence is the perfect storm for being misled, and for many scientific issues the price of being wrong is just too high. Completely glosses over the fact that so called scientists have been abusing their authority for monetary and political gain for decades.