[mannanj]

hi runtime, thank you for attempting to engage in good faith.

when I said I don't blindly follow authority or blindly call "science" as a credibility shield, I think you demonstrated bad faith of my argument by saying:

> Your statements imply that we can't trust scientists because of their 'authority' and that they just use that position as scientists to nefariously control you?

I never implied scientists can't be trusted or that they're nefarious. This is both a straw man and attacking me as some sort of person wishing ill intent on others.

When you said > I don't see any other way humans can get a clear understanding of the world other than the scientific process

Again via bad faith, or straw man, you imply I have rejected the scientific process.

Do you know what circular framing is? Do you see any circular reasoning issues in your response? I thank you for your engagement, though I can see we aren't aligned in intent in having an open-minded, scientific conversation.