>in a world where half of all published "science" is fake or fraudulent (and dominated by leftists),

See here is the thing- you don't know this is true. You never actually went and looked at the science or verified how much of it is fake. And yet, at the same time, you benefited from this science when its convenient to you because you probably don't realize that a medication or something you are using came from left leaning university.

This is what I mean by being out of touch with reality.

Sigh. Stop. I read the parent's post and his concerns are not without merit.

<< See here is the thing- you don't know this is true. You never actually went and looked at the science or verified how much of it is fake.

Technically speaking, neither do you unless you went over said data yourself. That said, some people did[2] and found that a good chunk of current studies can't be replicated. What does that say about the state of said science? Does it support your position? Does it support parent's post?

<< something you are using came from left leaning university.

The problem is not with left leaning or even right leaning. It is with people who blindly proclaim "Science!", but, at best, are an equivalent of annoying fanboys and, at worst, dilettantes, who feel compelled to use power of the state to squash people, who, in their mind, undermine their POV[1].

<< This is what I mean by being out of touch with reality.

And somehow, just to top it all off, they feel superior.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko [2]https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

Respectfully, the replication crisis in science doesn’t invalidate scientific consensus. The stuff that actually is thoroughly checked and widely accepted still stands, and is a much stronger foundation because it has been challenged and verified many times.

It’s a misconception that every published paper must be true. Testing and invalidating results is a part of the process.

Talking about leftist ideology in science hints that you want to reject the consensus because it disagrees with your dearly held beliefs.

<< Respectfully, the replication crisis in science doesn’t invalidate scientific consensus.

Sure, but it does undermine it.

<< The stuff that actually is thoroughly checked and widely accepted still stands, and is a much stronger foundation because it has been challenged and verified many times.

Which part of replication crisis is hard to understand? If it cannot be reliably replicated, then the foundation itself is flimsy bordering on tenuous.

<< It’s a misconception that every published paper must be true.

Bold, but I will attempt to respond with a straight face. Sure, but the referenced crisis does not affect one or even two papers. The problem starts when it hits sufficient number to make people question how much of those papers are just academia level reach arounds.

<< Testing and invalidating results is a part of the process.

Yes, absolutely. After all, exception tests the rule. The problem starts when the exception becomes the norm.

<< Talking about leftist ideology in science hints that you want to reject the consensus because it disagrees with your dearly held beliefs.

I would encourage you to read what I wrote and consider hesitating on trying to decode language as it is not your forte. I am not rejecting consensus. I am rejecting your premise.

edit: removed otherwise antagonizing language

> Sure, but it does undermine it.

Not really. Take something like vaccines. There’s a ton of verified evidence that they work, and the view that they cause harm is not well supported at all.

The fact that someone published papers about idk some obscure alkaloid causing mice to live longer and it’s the only paper ever written on this subject and it can’t be replicated, doesn’t say anything about the efficacy of vaccines.

There’s stuff that becomes a part of the consensus doesn’t do so based of a single paper.

The scientific knowledge is solid. And scientists know not to trust single unverified results.

<< Take something like vaccines.

If I may suggest something. If you are actually trying to convince someone, I would go with something a little less 'part of the culture wars in US'. That said, even for a coffeeless me it is laughably easy to dismantle this argument, but it will not take us anywhere useful.

Go with gravity man, it is genuinely harder to deny gravity.

I think you get the point that I’m making though. You could substitute vaccines by plate tectonics or evolution by natural selection or that smoking causes cancer.

I do hear you. What I am arguing that knowing your audience and meeting them where they are will likely yield better results. Otoh, I argue to argue, so there is that..