In the medical area (testing medications) history is full of wrong studies either by negligence or just by greed.

"Trust the science" is never a good argument as being to general. I'd trust most of the science in physics, chemistry and mathematics. Apart from those there are too many shenanigans.

What you're saying is that wrong understanding is better than not to try. At least when political action affecting many is derived from science, standards must be higher than currently.

For example the mRNA vaccines: As far as I know there is no or little research for possible long term side effects as the original research is for cancer medication which has vastly different risk trade offs. Nevertheless the vaccines are approved for use. I've read and seen in many discussions if one raises doubts that just "trust science" is the answer although there is no science. At least I expect when asked that a proponent can name a study which researches on the long term effects of vaccines or the underlying technology (eg. safety of packaging, which is deemed a trade secret and thus not public afaik). "Trust us" is the wrong answer as long as regulatory capture is a thing.

You can be wrong but state clear hypotheses and a non logically flawed reasoning that allows you to make statements about the world. These can then be tested for their validity.

What you claim is that the standard for the quality of the test are not high enough. That may be true or false however this is only one aspect of science. For instance many people misunderstand the use of maths in Economics. The point of using mathematical models is not to be able to make predictions about next year's GDP but to make sure that what follows from your clearly stated hypotheses about human behaviour is consistent.

Did the participants receive enough money to maintain their current standard of living? Was the UBI granted for life or just for a few years? If it was granted for life, did the participants fear that the program might be ended prematurely? Did they keep working to be a role model for their children, who might never receive UBI? Did the participants even have a job to begin with? A study can give only unemployed people UBI and if the participants don't seek employment, the unemployment rate doesn't change, and your conclusion drawn from this fact is all wrong.

If anything, I see this as the good example of "trust the science" used as a thought-terminating cliche - a way to shut down questioning without having to provide answers.

One of the main counterarguments to the universal basic income is that napkin math does not work out. You don't even need to get the "science" involved, just relatively simple algebra. Humanity does not have the resources for the majority of the population to receive benefits out of thin air. And no, $3200 AMZN is not really a resource most people would feel comfortable surviving on, unless they can exchange it for something of an actual value.

p.s. the Amazon bit is related to the "let's divide the wealth of the billionaires and we all will live happily ever after" mantra.

That said, answering with "napkin math" to a complex costing problem like UBI is exactly the problem and why we should listen more to scientists.

Unfortunately, many of us engineering types are way too quick to make very strong statements based on essentially no expertise except for some math and engineering education. Interestingly in my observation this behaviour is less prevalent in scientists (i.e. people coming from a science opposed to an engineering background). Obviously, this is only anecdotal, but I would be interested if others have observed this.

> To give a more concrete example, in the discussion about universal basic income, one of the main counterarguments is that people will just stop working. The answer to that counterargument is "trust the science", because every study made, has found that in fact people don't just stop working.

In literally every study ever done, the UBI substitute was not permanent. Studies of the impacts of a temporary stipend do not logically transfer to a permanent stipend. If you get a source of income that will stop in three years, it makes perfect sense to use that income to prepare yourself for life after the income. If you get a source of income that has been guaranteed for life, you've got a completely different set of incentives and there is no reason to assume that studies of temporary stipends apply.

“Trust in science or “because science” are just ways to shut down discussion or lines on inquiry that dare question the existing narrative.

Don’t believe me? Here’s an example.

Have you ever wondered, just hypothetically, if the Covid outbreak may have had any relation to the bio research lab located in Wuhan?

Well, you can’t wonder about that. If you do, being called a conspiracy theorist is the nicest thing anyone will say about you. If you think this is a good thing then you’ll be in for a rude awakening hen you happen to find yourself on the wrong side of the “scientific” debate.