Critical thinking? GMAB. People would have to be taught how to critique research. Common critical thinking doesn't cut it, and in the example of politicized sci

Critical thinking? GMAB. People would have to be taught how to critique research. Common critical thinking doesn't cut it, and in the example of politicized science substitutes for the craven "believe me or you aren't a critical thinker". Science's public credibility has always fully depended on its publicly perceived integrity, not the public's "critical thinking". Science / academia undermined its foundation decades ago and the current whining about it being challenged by soccer dads amounts to wanting to avoid acknowledging the sociopolitical consequences of science's self-debasement. It amounts to wanting to both own and eat cake. It's a child's whine. The reality is that official representatives of science cannot successfully browbeat people into giving it and them credibility, especially not in one of the most politicized environments that this Nation has known. That credibility had to be earned and maintained, and it wasn't. And so now the situation is that people will instinctually look for perceived inconsistencies (lies) as their technique in order to try to survive science and its representatives. Science created this situation. Its doubters did not. We see that the irony isn't lost on you to claim "psyops", being "under attack". and disparaging "conspiracies" in the same paragraph. We might assume that this roughly correlates with positions that you do and do not agree with.