If you haven't read the first part, go here.

In this part of my response to this article, I'm going to respond to the article directly. In short, the article makes the case for using the rational thought (or at least the thought) of each individual alone in arguments, forgoing using science as evidence in arguments for various reasons.

@kyriacos starts by claiming "[Scientists] can be biased, make errors, have wrong assumptions and most importantly, they can be manipulated either financially or ideologically."

It's true that scientists have potential biases. However, the scientific community is built around a culture of rigor and skepticism. What does that mean? Well, it means that without evidence an idea, theory, or hypothesis does not gain acceptance in the community. It means that when there is evidence, the thought is seriously considered only to the degree that the evidence has been verified by separate entities.

So, while individual scientists might be somewhat susceptible to manipulation and bad thinking, the community as a whole is quite insulated against it. Notice I did not say immune, just insulated.

Now cut to the common man or woman. What insulation does this person have against bias? What safeguards do you, as an individual have against your own mental errors? If you use your own reasoning alone, there's no one to watch your back and no systematic method to help you think rationally.

In short: yes, an individual person is, in general, susceptible to various biases that could effect research. But an individual trained against such biases in a community that is wholly opposed to them is less likely to make such a mistake, and even less likely to have such a mistake accepted by the community as a whole.

Another claim the article made was that "scientific evidence cannot produce facts. Ever" and "we are always wrong about what we assume as facts — at least to a degree."

This argument takes advantage of a philosophical quandary: how can anyone ever know anything for absolute certain? Can we ever know absolute truth? It's true that mankind's journey through the ages has been one defined by constantly re-defining our beliefs and perspectives about the world and each other. We laugh at many of the beliefs we had 100 years ago, and it's likely we'll laugh even harder at ourselves 100 years from now.

However, the reason we are able to do this is because we have better and better defined "maps" of the world. If I draw a map of an area is it going to be completely accurate? Hell no. But it'll probably get you to where you're going. The same is true with science. The question isn't whether we define facts from whether truth exists but, rather, whether it gets us to where we're going. If it allows us to put satellites in orbit and create mass communication, well - good enough. That is, good enough to get us to an even more accurate map.

The last statement I'll address is "Next time you are in an argument, try to use your own rational mind in order to speak about something."

There are a few problems with this. My rational minds has lots of ideas I have not taken the time to prove myself. I don't know all of the mathematical proofs behind all the math I know. Does that mean I should just forget math? Imagine the analogy in the physical world. Should I just walk to everywhere instead of using various modern modes of transportation? After all, I didn't invent them or build them, and I don't know in-depth how they work.

@kyriacos also takes a few jabs at falsifiability in the middle of the article: "What we call today as "soft" sciences such as sociology and psychology are bullshit because there is no way to falsify them. Heck, there is no way one can even make proper replication studies."

That's categorically untrue. It's true that no two studies will be exactly the same because of a number of minutiae that's bound to change, but the good news is that they don't have to be. After enough replication studies are done, a pattern will emerge.

I'll wrap things up in a small Part 3. If you haven't read Part 1 yet, go here.

Part 3 is here.