3 ms·
"It makes it seem as though there was just the Good side that had all the answers all along" That, right there, is where so many people went wrong and what was
by groby_b 3y ago
"It makes it seem as though there was just the Good side that had all the answers all along"
That, right there, is where so many people went wrong and what was blatantly exploited by grifters up and down the chain. The side of science didn't "have answers all along", but it was willing to learn and change.
And no, it wasn't "boo science". It was, to a large extent, political maneuvering using science as a convenient scape goat, because whenever science learned, it got turned into a "see, they don't know either". And, of course, with a large helping of grifters making money off the ensuing confusion.
In reality, it came down to seeing who was willing to change their mind in the face of new evidence, and it was a pretty clear signal. (It was not noise free, absolutely, but it was not extremely hard to read, either - if folks had a basic amount of scientific education. There's your solution, too)
- ifyoubuildit 3y ago> The side of science didn't "have answers all along", but it was willing to learn and change. This is the framing that I disagree with. There is no "the side of science". There are only people making assertions. Some of those people were practicing the scientific method competently and in good faith, some of those people were doing nothing of the sort, and from here in the cheap seats we just had to do our best to decide who was who. Some people like to think everyone should have trusted who they themselves decided to trust. I think this is unreasonable, but also unsurprising.