[TravisCooper]

Just put this out there:

The higher the stakes, the less we should trust what we're "told". Esp if we're told to "believe and don't question".

It won't always be obvious to you directly, why something is wrong or corrupt, rather this is a sense we have to develop over time: question the people and ideas that we're supposed to "trust".

[dweekly]

Blind mistrust can lead to even more foolishness than blind trust because it presumes the individual alone to have the power to fully discern the systems of the world independent of the inputs of others. This framing is how you get things like flat earth, holocaust denial, etc. Healthy skepticism is appropriate - and god bless investigative journalism to find holes in things* - but generally speaking, people try to do the right thing.

* I'd suggest a donation to the Center for Investigative Reporting if this resonates

[wolverine876]

Also, blind mistrust usually is connected with blind trust ... in someone else. Some 'disprupter' or influencer says 'X is all wrong, they are liars, ...' and goes through the usual diatribe. Something in Internet culture results in a significant number of people trusting them, regardless of any facts, their credibility, the credibility of their target, etc.

[gjsman-1000]

Meh, blind trust is equally dangerous, if not more dangerous. Blind trust in Hitler caused the Holocaust. Blind mistrust merely causes denial that it happened.

Why should I trust a scientist? Because they have a few fancy letters next to their name? There’s no scientific evidence, according to themselves, that they are any less likely to be sociopaths, psychopaths, immoral, or irresponsible than the average population.

[pasc1878]

However if they something about the science they specialise in they are much more likely to know more that you, scientists not in their field let alone the general public.

yes they will lie as much as anyone else but when they do not if you take the expected value of what a scientist says in their speciality it is much more likely to be correct.

[wolverine876]

> Why should I trust a scientist? Because they have a few fancy letters next to their name?

That's not why people place trust in some scientists. Can you think of other reasons? How do you evaluate anyone's trustworthiness, unless you know them or research them personally (something we don't have time for)? Otherwise, you are stuck with blind mistrust, as you say.

> Blind trust in Hitler caused the Holocaust.

Blind loyalty, perhaps, and following the crowd and avoiding conflict, and amorality.

[shitpostbot]

For those of you who read this and immediately started wondering what crazy stuff this guy believes, it's "Evolution is a hoax"

[nequo]

You’re posting your conspiracy theory under the wrong article. This one is about paper mills, not the manipulation of public opinion in high-stakes cases.

[coldtea]

You're posting the "trust the system" apologetics under the wrong comment.

The observation the parent makes about "high stakes" is fully compatible with the article, and it's just a general observation about similar shit on all domains. The same shit that happens when there are high stakes (products, money, careers, grants, etc.) on the table for scientists/journals is also true for politicians, journalists, regulating bodies, and so on.

It's also not a conspiracy theory: just basic life experience.

[nequo]

Paper mills are not usually the prestigious journals. Those are usually obscure outlets whose sole purpose is to publish questionable research.

Leading the public opinion is happening elsewhere.