"hurr science isn't political. Scientific community is always 100% right!"

Those who believe this are idiots.

Lots of data can be manipulated, especially when it comes to food and drugs.

>"science isn't political"
*reminds you about the "ethics" meme*
*reminds you about where the vast majority of scientific funding comes from (the government)*

Funding, not the experiment itself.

Most experiments are run by corporations and industries.

>Funding, not the experiment itself.
What's your point?

Sure smells /pol/ in here.

Government funds the experiments, but they don't monitor the experiments in case there's data manipulation by not including certain variables/control groups etc.

>"hurr OP isn't a fag. /pol/ is always 100% right!"
Those who believe this are redditors.
Lots of shitposts can be made, especially when it comes to crossposters and underages/

Everything you've said is accurate, yet it means nothing
great job

>don't trust science guys I heard crystals cured some kid's leukemia

I never said science was always wrong, dipshit. It's just that some science is.

Oh it's much worse than that. Only someone involved in science can explain just how fucking truly awful every branch of it is. EVERY branch is insanely politicized, but not in the ways that, say, /pol/ would think. It's not left/right - it's more issue based. So for example, in biology - especially as regards habitat protection or wild space restoration - hunters and ranchers have 100% authoritative control. Whatever they don't want or aren't interested in simply doesn't happen. Same with anthropology. What happens when someone digs up "anamolous" human remains in America - say that are obviously Caucasian from 9000 years ago? Native American tribes come driving in to DEMAND that the artifacts be immediately destroyed, without examination. And 99% of the time, that's precisely what happens.

Also this fucking bullshit here. "Corporate science" isn't science. It's fucking propaganda.

yeah, like any data that provides evidence of data manipulation.

Science can only be manipulated in the early stages of research. As more and more experiments and data come in the ideas which are wrong are replaced.

Science bitches are constantly wrong and always reversing their conclusions.

Supposedly. In reality, it depends on who's controlling the grant money.

>As more and more experiments and data come in the ideas which are wrong are replaced.
The vast majority of scientific experiments are never tested for reproducibility

Yeah, and because of pay journals and the normie-ization of STEM a lot of papers are total bullshit now too. We're literally watching science die.

>Scientific community is always 100% right!
It's funny because all of my professors have always hammered in the fact that science is not fact and is based on strong evidence but still isn't a fact. I think people who claim otherwise are just smug assholes.

Well, soft sciences prove this at least

literal whore for whatever is politically in vogue

Not an argument. It doesn't matter who funds or performs an experiment unless you can show the results are invalid or provide contradictory evidence.

>It doesn't matter who funds or performs an experiment unless you can show the results are invalid or provide contradictory evidence.
Theoretically sure, but in practice many experiments (i.e. those done at CERN) are far too expensive and impractical for anyone else to reproduce

Yes. It is an argument you fucking retarded faggot. This "not an argument" bullshit needs to go. If you use it when someone uses a fallacy, then whatever. But not just a "No U!". That shows you're a fucking retard.