> "Trust the science" is a poorly-phrased attempt to counter the persistent conspiracy theories that various science disciplines, and the scientists that work t

> "Trust the science" is a poorly-phrased attempt to counter the persistent conspiracy theories that various science disciplines, and the scientists that work therein, are part of this or that conspiracy to reduce your freedoms, mislead the public, etc. Or the related conspiracy theory that science broadly is bullshit and that the primary motivation of any scientific study is the continued justification of funding, rather than pursuit of knowledge Actually no. It's a purely anti science/authoritarian approach to avoid any dissent when politically convenient. Covid policies were the perfect example and labeling/censoring instead of debating (even other scientists like those on the great Barrington declaration) shows that it's not really about science but about control. Corruption is not a grand conspiracy but a natural thing that occurs in bureocratic institutions and, nonetheless, accusing and exposing corruption and inconsistency was a big no in anything related covid (lockdowns, mandates, censorship, etc). Freedoms WERE limited unconstitutionally and selectively but people would be telling you "my fredumbs, grandmakiller, conspiracy theorist" because they couldn't really argue except via way of appeals to authority and slogans such as trust the science. The science wasn't one and wasn't uniform, but you couldn't even compare "sciences". You only had to take it. Those of us who engage in science are not afraid to expose our results and hypothesis and don't need censorship.