When I first joined Steemit I was appalled from the conspiracy bullshit that was trending. I was hoping for some science to shine through. It was hard since most cryptocurrency adopters were people who are contrarians to almost everything and don't trust anything other than their own circle jerked sources.
Later on the "science crew" made a come back. Nonetheless, it was the same shit but from the opposite spectrum. Instead of having guys who did not trust anyone and anything we had people who treated scientific journals like holy books, unable to be able to think for themselves. These are the individuals who are usually funded from governments projects and institutions and are unable to find anything in the real private world. As you can see, quite the opposite from the tinfoilers that despise the government.
Science or conspiracy theories, don't make someone a critical thinker. Most scientists that I have met, follow specific rules, almost like rituals. If it is dictated a certain way through the instruction book then it must be right for them. This is also how we get A and B students working for C students. The "best" students that tend to fall into science are people who learn how to follow the forms without deviating from them. Those who do follow the book instructions not are considered "stupid" yet they are most likely the ones that change the world through their more open minded perspectives — by utilising the close-mindedness of the A and B students.
The point is not who is smarter and who is dumber. That comparison is rather pointless since intelligence is not even a measurable thing. It is something a semi-quasi field (psychology) invented. And again, even if psychology, sociology and most of other social sciences do not follow scientific forms they are followed as science because of tradition — much like religion. And they are believed equally from tinfoilers and scientists alike because some research seems to reinforce their own perspectives.
I tried to resonate with both groups in several occasions but there is no way to argue properly since only some evidence is accepted in each case. The problem with both is that they rely solely on evidence to make any arguments and rather fail to think for themselves. The evidence are not even relevant most of the time.
For example, GMO's are not proven to be safe in the log run. They are just demonstrate to be safe right now and indeed they are crucial for feeding the world. Same thing was assumed about radioactivity (presumably having healing properties) and smoking that was even recommended in hospitals in order to cure some respiratory diseases. It was only in the macro perspective and after a generation or two that we were able to see the harmful after effects of smoking and radioactivity.
Electronic cigarettes or even climate change is also subject to the same critical thinking. We can bring all the evidence we want about current measurements and even set up charts like traders but the truth is that the weather is not a linear thing not something that can be easily predicted — even in the macro scale. Once again, the political narrative is what matters. Heck, even liberal Obama couldn't change the course of things in regards to climate change even if he was supporting the scientific perspective. At the end is all about the interpretation. For those who engaged with statistical analysis, you know exactly what I mean.
If you try to open up a dialogue with scientists about these basic facts they will dismiss you as a "denialist". Same applies when trying to approach tinfoilers. They would pick their own special kind of science that is also based on inconclusive data. Most people forget that in most scientific fields we rarely have any replicable data and that most researchers design experiments to fit their own assumptions. This is how most research is funded actually. A problem is given from the grant committee and the researcher works backwards to fill in the blanks.
The circle jerking create a chasm of knowledge that manifests into a political charade. You either pick a side or end up watching the shitshow between two groups that blindly follow their own sources religiously without being able to think for themselves. Part of the problem is that in this time and age, information is served without much effort. Journals are laid up before us and and trail of references is rarely verified. People pick and choose the views that suit their hypothesis and go from there. Factions are created and then they are extremely hard to break.
So, much like with everything else it is not wise to stand alone and rather pick a side. I believe this is not the way to go but I accept that this is how the world works. I am better off not engaging with either side and rather examine things from my own perspective.
PS: It served me well over the past few years and I suspect it will help me greatly even more in the future. For example, I have argued about problems with intelligence in psychology and reproducibility in science about changing the p-value that indicates statistical significance. Many have ignored because it would render entire fields obsolete. Nonetheless, sooner or later these changes arrive and it becomes hard to look the other way.
