| > When and about what has it been crying wolf? I can give you instances, but that would not be very efficient. Because you can then be apologetic of the examples I provide.. The real question is "can the scientific community be made to have a consensus based on politics rather than science?". I think the answer is a resounding "YES", simply because it is made up of human beings who are not less susceptible to ways of coercion, than the human beings in actual politics or other fields that we can agree that corruption exists. >From what little I've seen of academic research, the people in there haven't seemed to be dishonest or intending to defraud. Politicians at a high level being corrupt does not imply, or require, that every government official is corrupt. So I am not sure why you mention it. > but is it really such a widespread problem that it counts as the entire community becoming suspect? https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-hea... This is not a justification or proof (as I said earlier, it would not be a very efficient use of my time), but something you can start with if you are genuinely interested and if you really have no idea how bad things are in this regard (Jeez, i wonder how can that be the case!) |