Traf444

I agree with what you say in general, but...

One of the problems today for me is that most people is skeptic because they cannot understand the answer to the question they ask.

Sooner or later I have to rely on an expert in most areas of science. Which would be fine for me if I could trust that the expert actually answers in his expert opinion and not because he was bought to give a certain answer.

Schooling is mandatory up to a certain level in my country. I'm going to pull dates out of my ass, because I'm too lazy to compare them to what you actually learn in school, but the level of math for the average person is probably 19th century of science, as well for chemistry and physics, with some basic knowledge about stuff from the 20th century.

Most people are not equipped with the tools to understand most of modern day science. They approach it with opinions based on feelings or what their random favorite actor/actress or singer thinks. And we cannot expect them to be equipped with the right tools either.

Reality doesn't change even if people deny it, but is science as a field really resistant if most people just flat out deny science, especially if politicians starts doing it and deny funding due to it?

I agree that this erodes some trust and I can understand and agree with people that are upset about this change. They did inform us though, even though the language used could use less marketing speech, instead of trying to fly it in under the radar and at least it seems to be possible to disable the "feature".

No, you throw out nonsense single line sentences that say and contribute nothing.

A politician will not act on anything unless it will hurt their chances of getting re-elected.

Humans in general are very short term creatures and we fail at having a long term perspective on most things.

That's also the reason why I believe that any concrete things set in motion will probably focus on fixing the symptoms of climate change, the short term quick fix, rather than fixing the underlying issues that have lead to climate change. Sadly...

From what I perceive one of the problems is funding.

This is not strictly related to what you write and more about research in general, but most researchers seem to avoid submitting negative results. Disproving something can be just as important as proving something, but it is seen as a failure in most cases and can negatively impact your future funding.

This leads some researchers to just hide their "failures" and some go as far as doctoring the results.

That's not what I tried to say. It's up to you as a user to make due diligence and make an informed decision if you want to use the software or not.

Any serious project would have some form of web of trust and know who has commit rights. It's up to you to decide if you trust their web of trust.

I guess from your comments that you are not actually interested in contributing to the discussion since you just sprout single line comments with no information at all.

I guess you have never had commit rights to any Linux distribution or such?

You don't get commit rights as a random person, so yes, a commit can usually be traced back to a person. Sure, the committer could have received a patch from a unknown person, but then he's still responsible for the commit.