The Royal Society is important because it is where the UK government go when they need good advice on scientific issues. Many people in the US might think that their government doesn't need good advice on scientific issues but, as they will find out, they are wrong.

If so, why would one automatically assume Musk has the bad advice and the rest of them have good advice? It's awfully ironic as science is literally the process of demonstrating the widely-accepted wisdom (preeminent theory) wrong.

Do you want to take a risk of going down the history as the society who estranged Galileo? Even the haters secretly know that the likelihood of Musk being remembered in history books is higher than a random FRS. In fact, that's likely why they are jealous and eager to write such letters.

> why would one automatically assume Musk has the bad advice

I don't think any of this is automatic. It's a considered response to the bias that Musk has recently demonstrated when discussing scientific topics.

>>non-mainstream opinions

It's a society of scientists - why would it admit or tolerate liars? Spreading obviously and easily provable misinformation online isn't "non-mainstream opinion" - it's just lying. Why would that be tolerated?

Why are they defending Fauci then?

Are they? They are objecting Musk posting provably wrong statements on social media, arguing that as a fellow of the RS he shouldn't do that - the statements are on a variety of topics, not just Fauci.

Let's take your word for it. Fauci is a fellow too. If they are so concerned about spreading truth, why don't they object to his provably false statements and unethical exclusion of NIH funding of scientists (proof in email records) he does not like and ask for his exclusion?

You very well know the answer to that.

>>You very well know the answer to that.

I genuienly honestly don't know.

It's generally the latter.

"How do you know" teaches us something; "how do you perceive it" does not.