I do not trust accepted mainstream science.
There is no such thing as "mainstreem science", there is just science & faith-based systems. It doesn't matter who makes an assertion, what matters is how you reach a conclusion. The scientific method provides the tools to verify if a hypothesis can be accepted with an acceptable degree of certainty.
This post highlights how most people just believe stuff based on nothing but faith and emotion instead checking it out themselves or better yet use the scientific method to test a conclusion. Dismissing something just because it comes from a particular source is just as bad as accepting something else because it originates from "trusted" one...both are different faces of the same coin.
Acceptable degree of certainty is not fact. What was thought to be a proven scientific fact 50 years ago today can seem down right silly. The scientific method was used by the "scientists" who said cigarettes were safe. We can't all spend our lives in a laboratory, researching, we must choose someone to believe. Knowing who employs a "scientist" is very important. The criminal corporations have proven time and again they will lie about science to achieve a desired end.
So you are saying every university in the world, every biotech start-up, every brewery, every state, every research institution and every planetarium is a criminal corporation?
I know it seems hard to understand, but most scientists decide to be scientists because they love what they are doing. As a matter of fact, to be a scientist you spend roughly 3-4 years in college, 3-5 years working on your PhD, 1-3 years on post-doc (all this in universities usually), and then start out with roughly 40k a year. It is a lot of effort and not a lot of gain. So stating that science is all about money is absolutely wrong. Science is more passion than people think. Science is not about dollar signs. So I would rather trust a peer-reviewed paper, than a magazine that needs blow up every minor story to intrigue people to buy their paper (same applies to websites). I think that scienctists are more critical than all the conspracists that claim to be critical.
Yes, theories change. But that is because science is critical with itself and considers new evidence that arises (which I cannot say about most "scepticists". Cheers
Well said.