Your post does not really say anything, so it is somewhat difficult to know what exactly you're talking about. However the way this is written is very similar to the usual globalwarming sceptics, skin color intelligence crowd etc.. The general argument is always "we are just questioning the status quo, just want to look at all angles..." the reason why these positions are being called anti-scientific is because they are always politically motivated and try to prove this political ideology, while at the same time ignoring any counterevidence.

Similar to the documentary of those flat earth guys that try to disprove the earth is round, but all results show that it in fact is, so they dismiss their own evidence. That is what is unscientific.

Name a single group of skeptical dissenters who you think are right. You can’t. But science is always proving itself wrong and just as it has always been, groups of dissenters will overtake the people who preside over convention, scientifically. So which one is it? Is science “finished?” Has everything been figured out or are you just not able to differentiate between dumb people and legitimate dissenters, as I pointed out above?

I'm not sure I understand why you think I can't name a group of critical dissenters that I think are right. For example I do believe that the "dissenters" who criticise string theory (google "not even wrong string theory" ) are at least correct in their "political" arguments that the focus on string theory funding might has painted us into a corner and held back scientific progress. Note I am not a particle physicist so don't know enough to judge any "unifying theory" as correct or incorrect. Similarly the people looking for a theory underneath quantum theory might be correct (I'm more sceptical about this, but again not enough of an expert to judge), and the Copenhagen interpretation is not everything.

So no science is not finished and yes our understanding of science still progresses. However, two things first it does not need "sceptical dissenters" to progress science. There are many areas in science where there are many "known unknowns" and where there isn't an established theory.

Moreover, even acknowledging that there are areas where "sceptical dissenters" might be right and change the established understanding, those will not come from a direction of questioning and ignoring the scientific method.

In other words someone ignores the scientific method he/she is not a legitimate dissenter.

But you need to be more specific ("butter bei die Fische" is the German expression), what are legitimate dissenters and how do you judge them as legitimate?

I dont even know which dissenters are supposed to be wrong or right. Are you talking about climate change or vaccines or racism as something that has role in shaping society? Or something entirely different?

Are you talking about dissenters that argue by politics and own wishes? Or dissenters who have alternative explanation of history? I dont know.

11186171, so I can't say I agree with every point, at the risk of feeding a troll, I have some suggestions and observations. Take them as free advice, which is, of course, worthless. An opening statement of calling out the mods is never going to be successful. You're cranky and it feels good, but I think deep down you know it's not an effective tactic. I think in this case you're trying to be even handed, that's admirable, but even acknowledging the existence of mods is a faux pas. A lawyer does not address the judge. The judge is there, the lawyer should address the jury. I understand you may not like it, but that's how it is. much like code can't escape the type checker, there are meta-rules to follow. The vague intonation of "certain political group" is a bit confusing. It winds up being something like soothsaying. Take a stand, say what you mean. Anyway, I think we only learn things from mistakes. Science is nothing more than a huge collection of mistakes. Or perhaps, cookbooks for avoiding those mistakes. I'll go with Edward Gemming here, "In god we trust, all others must bring data". You got a good reason, you can prove it, or at least show current models don't reflect reality, or you're dumb. I can get on board with that system. Perhaps, hell probably, some worship science as though it were a god. There are always crackpots. Bring your data, fix the model.

Just wanted say that your reply is much better than mine. You just engaged with what the person said, without interpreting the insinuations (like I did). Thanks!

I feel personally wronged by people who stagnate science. I have medical problems that fall through the cracks because of it. I have suffered immensely because of it. Tons of people have I bet. I feel so personally wronged. If it weren’t for that, why would I ever bother caring about this? I wouldn’t have so much venom for slackjaws otherwise...

And yet you're still alive and kicking. Rejoice.

I'm a literal lab rat. Late 80s, my disease and the treatment had 95% mortality within the first year (BMT for aplastic anemia). I've had dozens of complications, some life threatening, all miserable. Most recently, I was the 3rd patient to undergo a novel way to use whole body radiation to beat back an autoimmune disease (TBI for chronic GVHD).

Sure, a lot of my care providers have sucked. And insurers would prefer I'd just die already. And I've definitely been grumpy.

And yet I'm still alive and kicking.

Life is a gift. Every day is a celebration.

It's very, very hard. But if at all possible, I encourage you to find a way to transmute your anger and outrage into action.

For a while, I channeled my energies into healthcare IT and election integrity. Before that, I cosplayed as a treehugger, trying to save endangered salmon. Maybe I did a little bit of good, nudged the needle.

Was it worthwhile? No clue. But everyone needs a hobby, so at least the work kept me distracted.

>I have medical problems that fall through the cracks because of it. I have suffered immensely because of it.

Not surprising at all, this is generally the time when people see the incompetence, arrogance and lack of integrity of the 'experts'. From then on all expert opinion is suspect.

There’s truth to what you say, but prefixing it with a comment about dang is unnecessary and detracts from your point. I think almost all of us here are sympathetic to and appreciative of dang, so your opening remark does not appeal to me, and thus puts me on the defense against the rest of your comment.

Fair and true

This "political group" does science a huge disservice.

At different points in history, different political groups were stuffing their ideas down people's throats claiming it all is based on science, religion or bright ideals of democracy as given to us by the founding fathers.

More often than not it was bullshit. What a pity!

[EDIT: slightly reworded]