ok, but what about three Youtube videos?

But I said the phrase "scientists don't know everything" so now you have to listen to my bullshit.

It isn’t even better science, it is just more science.

That why its such a shame that big corporations can and do regularly buy scientists opinions in exchange for funding setting up a ill give $xxx.xxx for your environmental impact study to not blame my coal mine. Thus by negating the peer review process. science can sadly no longer be taken at face value with out knowing who funded it and why. i miss trusting scientists who are clearly smarter than me because they fell in to the capitalist greed trap RIP real science we should have treated you better and i am sorry.

I once saw a cow on a roof. Can science explain that? I didn't think so.

Who has time for YouTube? I get my conspiracies and lies from millisecond-long TikToks.

• an anecdote your cousin told you

Counterpoint: nuh-uh (They et. al., good ol' days).

Citations

They et. al. (Good ol' days). Trump proves that YouTube videos about The Creator that validate your feelings are equivalent to science. Many People Are Saying, 1(2), 10–20. Things I done heard. https://doi.org/I forget

Hey, but measles in Texas, and tuberculosis in Missouri, are making comebacks!
Ivermectin! RFKjr! Bleach!

Learn to ReSeArcH!!

How about 47 TikTok videos?

Ideally, yes.

What ends up happening if your research shows new conclusions on the basis of “better science” is that those in power will probably ridicule your new conclusions and findings since it doesn’t align with ‘accepted’ scientific consensus and doctrine. And by ridicule I don’t mean challenging the new theory on the basis of counter data/evidence and reasoning. I mean ad hominem attacks on the researchers themselves. “Well, they graduated from a top 30 university and not MIT, so anything they produce is not worth looking into”. You won’t be funded and the status quo will be allowed to continue without significant challenge.

I used to want to be a researcher when I was younger. My experiences have been wrought with closed-mindedness, arrogance, and lack of critical judgment and objectivity. Maybe my experiences aren’t representative, but hearing from others (at least in my field), I see that this is a systemic and widespread problem within the scientific community as a whole.

How long did it take to convince people the Earth was not at the center of our universe?

"I did my own research"

Oh, you did? You had a lab, and test subjects and ran double blind studies? Is it peer reviewed?

"Oh, no I listened to Joe Rogan"

something that does count:
a dream about a snake eating it's own butt (cool story btw)

Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.

Dude, have you looked out your window? Its so obvious the qorld is flat... /s

While they don't refute it, enough of those do prevent better science from happening though, especially when it's needed.

All I gotta say is technology has finally made us dumber

Indeed, and in addition if your religion is not supported by the facts it's time to revise its assumptions. Religion can deal with new evidence, it's just rather slow compared to say human lifetimes. I suspect thats because the basis of many faiths reasoning is built on philosophy, Christianity in particular. Which is a kind of precursor to experimental science where progress is slow or even circular.

Science is important, it helps us solve many of the problems we do not have without science

I need a tshirt of this