[CivBase]

> That's the thing... science is a method.

Exactly. Politicians and media outlets want us to believe science is just the opinions of people with credentials, regardless of evidence or consensus from others with similar credentials.

Once those opinions are shared by enough political supporters, those same politicians and media outlets will do everything they can to amass evidence which supports them. It often comes in the form of quasi-scientific studies with unmentioned flaws and limitations. If you're lucky, the studies will even be peer reviewed; but once the opinions which the study seeks to verified have been so heavily politicized, it's much harder to trust the effectiveness of peer reviews.

[24gttghh]

No. One particular flavor of politician wants you to believe science is just "opinions". You're simply highlighting that those people are liars. That has nothing to do with the scientific method.

[CivBase]

> No. One particular flavor of politician wants you to believe science is just "opinions".

I'm not sure exactly which "flavor" you're referring to, but if I'd have to guess I'd say its the political party which aligns least with your own opinions.

> You're simply highlighting that those people are liars. That has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Yeah, that's what I said. Science is a method used to establish evidence for patterns and relationships. The opinions of individuals are not necessarily couched in science, regardless of their credentials.

[mhh__]

Like what? Climate change for example has been independently confirmed so many times now - where is a list of papers that you are sure have been manipulated to suit political aims