What’s there to think about? Scientists are not credulous people and that’s a very good thing. There are plenty of research projects dedicated to searching for other forms of intelligent life and none of them have yielded any evidence.

This is unexplained phenomena which could be the result of diminished mental acuity or other unexplained physical events. I’m not sure how these theories should be made anymore legitimate without more evidence?

I don't think that would be your logical next step as it doesn't logically follow from the earlier steps. My post started with "Say that you are interested in investigating puzzling phenomena, and you have the money.". So my post presupposes that interest. You don't have that interest (at least not in the same way) so your point is moot. You can't say "Say that you have an interest. Your next logical step would be not to have the interest".

Nothing really "logically follows" from what you said since you were speaking informally rather than proposing an airtight logical syllogism. And since this is a conversation, I don't have to choose to follow along with whatever premises you choose to stipulate if I don't think they adequately reflect the reality they're attempting to model, or if I don't agree with you that they presuppose the things you think they presuppose.

What we often fail to realize -- esp. in our tech bubble -- is that science is now mistrusted by the mainstream in society.

I think it's more to do with the those claiming things in the name of science that puts many people off.

Science is a process, a method by which we can answer certain types of questions. To often people hear things like settled science, or the science is crystal clear, not up for debate.. These are political posturing and have little to do with actual science. It's absurd, and some people realize this.

As with any science, data comes in late, or sometimes not at all. There are quite a few FDA prescription drugs that were approved and later recalled, some with devastating effects on their consumers.

The truth is, science is done by people, people who are infallible. People who make mistakes, who see things from a certain point of view, or who don't have all the data yet. Additionally, prediction models can be tweaked to say exactly what you want to, with devastating effect on our community.

You can't say anything though. Even in grad school labs, to make certain statements or even hint about things can lead to problems with your advisor, or research, or worse yet, peers.. Academia is a great place, at least it has been for me, as long as you keep your head down and focus on research.. i dont think it's the best place now if you truly want to question everything. I wouldn't even venture where you could go for that now.

I think this has led to a generalized mistrust, and it falls on all of us. The reality is that data is always changing, models change, etc.. People who put policies into legislation need to balance not only the aspect of the science, but the overall big picture; cultural, societal, expectations, desires etc. as well. That's politics. I think it was Russ Roberts who said you can engineer a bridge, but you can't engineer society in the same way. And i think that's right, too Often we miss that.

FYI, you meant "fallible". "Infallible" means they don't make mistakes.

I think that when many people here think of science then it is the science, the methodology.

What you are describing is the science, the institution and this is perhaps also how wider public perceives it.

Using "science" makes your statement too broad.

Fallacious appeals to shame, in all likelihood

Yeah, good luck with your long hard think