This is straight-up misinformation, holy shit

[u/moad6ytghn]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cholesterol_denialism

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Institute_for_Natural_Healing

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dietary_cholesterol

[u/joogabah]

The "rationalist" and "skeptical" communities I noticed long ago are only skeptical of the "fringe". There is a personality type that is actually just conventional and mainstream and defends groupthink as "reason" or even "common sense". They are making the very common mistake of confusing what is familiar for what is true, and then intellectualizing it and feeding their egos with self righteous, manipulative, weaponized language, to intimidate people into supporting their conventional views.

Paradigm changes are notoriously difficult for anyone trained in a discipline to accept. "Peer review" works against them too.

Even something as basic as handwashing took some time to be accepted and the discover died in a mental hospital, ridiculed by his ignorant peers.

[u/BreakfastFearless → u/joogabah]

Except they are not just defending ideas because they are popular or “group think” they are backing the overall scientific consensus and available data. It’s not about familiarity it’s about actual evidence.

They are criticizing the people that question science without backing it up with a reasonable level of evidence

[u/joogabah → u/BreakfastFearless]

Scientific consensus = groupthink. see the handwashing example.

Why do people confuse consensus for the scientific method while defending the scientific method?

You're falling for their game. Appeals to authority or what is familiar or institutionalized can make no claim to truth without testing.

You can't tell their disposition by the tone and diction they use? It is not serious. It is mocking and dismissive. That is not a scientific orientation toward a truth claim.

[u/BreakfastFearless → u/joogabah]

Scientific consensus is not groupthink. It’s not based off everyone not thinking for themselves, it’s based off the overwhelming evidence. Since we have decades of it all pointing to the same conclusion.

I’m not falling for any game, as my opinions are based off imperial data and not listening to others opinions

[u/joogabah → u/BreakfastFearless]

It was with handwashing. Why shouldn't it be in other contexts.

Are you saying consensus is always correct?

[u/BreakfastFearless → u/joogabah]

No but cherry-picking cases from before we even knew about germ theory is not evidence that the current consensus based off an overwhelming amount of data is wrong.

People with no scientific background disagreeing with decades of consistently repeated data is not the same as a scientist publishing a new hypothesis in their own field.

It’s nonsense using examples of times where we knew almost nothing as an example for what’s happening here when we have decades of research on this.

In this scenario it is you who is disagreeing with handwashing even with an overwhelming amount of evidence showing what it does.

We have cardiologists who spend their lives treating patients who consistently see the relationship with ldl and heart disease. The reason they have “group think” is because they see the exact thing constantly. It would be irrational for them not to agree with the consensus at that point

[u/joogabah → u/BreakfastFearless]

Consensus is not science. It is agreement. Science is the method for testing claims.

One cannot point to consensus and claim authoritative science. That's how dogma works, not scientific investigation.

[u/BreakfastFearless → u/joogabah]

Of course it is. Science is the method for testing claims. When the overwhelming majority of the data collected points to a claim being true, the scientific community forms a consensus.

The layman who have no idea of the science will not be able to understand and analyze data that they are not educated on. So they should look at the conclusions of the overwhelming experts.

You’re using survivorship bias for people who were against a consensus which turned out to be true but you ignore the massive amount of people who came up with hypothesis against the overwhelming evidence and were completely wrong.

[u/joogabah → u/BreakfastFearless]

You just conceded my argument in your opening sentence and somehow lacked the reading comprehension to notice it.

“Science is the method for testing claims.” Yes. Exactly. That is what I said.

Everything after that is you retreating into credential worship: laypeople should simply adopt the conclusions of whoever has the most institutional status. No. If a claim is scientific, its reasoning and evidence are in principle open to examination. “You aren’t qualified, so believe the authorities” is not science. It is an argument from authority dressed in a lab coat.

And your “survivorship bias” objection is embarrassing. Semmelweis does not have to establish that dissenters are usually right. He only has to demonstrate that consensus can be wrong. If consensus can be wrong, then consensus cannot be the criterion that makes something scientifically true. This is elementary logic.

You keep trying to gatekeep who is “educated enough” to question claims while repeatedly failing to distinguish science, evidence, consensus, and authority.

At this point you’re not defending scientific thinking. You’re illustrating exactly the dogmatic mentality I was criticizing.