[ithkuil]

My point is that the scientific process is the thing that allows reality to be eventually probed despite the occasional stubbornness or irrationality of a particular individual or even a whole generation (or a whole century).

You seem to be throwing the baby with the bathwater and being too cynical if you conclude that reality just cannot be something people agree on just because there are (and always will be) particular areas of research where people are far from objectivity because led by other interests)

[dennis_jeeves1]

>You seem to be throwing the baby with the bathwater and being too cynical if you conclude

No, I didn't disagree with the scientific process per-se. But don't put too much faith in it either if there are things at stake for you. You have to personally investigate a subject if needed if the stakes are high enough. Medicine is one area I can think off. Don't always conclude that it is a generally upward trajectory of better understanding either. People often replace one set of superstition with another.

In the end it really depends on your personal background and experience. If you have never taken on the establishment or if you never observed an anomaly with established expert/scientific opinion you won't know the rot.

[ithkuil]

> You have to personally [..]. People often replace one set of superstition with another.

indeed you're right to be suspicious of others, when there are incentives that drive their behaviour in ways that are not necessarily aligned with your best interest (consciously or unconsciously).

but, the sad truth is that you yourself can be victim by all sorts of biases and not even personally investigating stuff will necessarily bring you closer to an objective assessment.

The best you can do is to be critical of your own biases, inasmuch as possible.

It cuts both way: the superstition of the conspiracy is also a thing that clouds the mind.