ah you're just being facaetious now. We are discussing a very specific phenomenon where prevalent observer experience can't just be chalked down to fantasy.

People rejected the germ theory of disease because, among other reasons, they didn't feel it was in accord with their personal experience. Personal experience is the root of baseless superstition. Tell me what's wrong with these different examples, which fit the new criteria you've added.

We're discussing the experience of educated, and critical truthful observers, vs sensationalistic scientism and you throw up alien abductions, life-after-death experience and something about germ theory. I don't know which people you're talking about but it's been known for time immemorial among many cultures that cleanliness is a good way to avoid disease. You are cherry-picking narratives to suite your rhetoric.

We need to be beyond a level of discourse where "because science" or "a study said" is considered a fait acompli. Science often contradicts herself and studies are often debunked.

Just because "some guy wrote it", doesn't make it so.

> We need to be beyond a level of discourse where "because science" or "a study said" is considered a fait acompli. Science often contradicts herself and studies are often debunked.

I don't disagree. But I don't think personal anecdote is a sufficient answer. You could criticize the quality of the research (in more specific terms than "pop-sci") or present contradictory evidence and I'd have no problem with it. Simply attacking a guy in a casual discussion that is not particularly rigorous for posting a citation you deem insufficiently rigorous without further explanation I do not think is fair.

Huh?

Initially, I merely proposed that in the modern world we need to be more rigorous in our evaluation of scientific propositions.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18083635

That's where you joined in.

I had wrongly attributed the DanBC comment to you. Sorry.