Why not trust random shitposters and trolls? Now there's a question.

In the late 80es I stumbled by myself upon the idea that narrating plausible logic to presumable bias was a recipe for persuasive stories based on no specific evidence. I felt it was ok to question my own biases but was scared of the mess that a fashion of applying the recipe to others would produce, and kept it all to myself. In the meantime, didn't we pretty much get there?

Speaking of evidence, scientific findings can be checked, it just takes years of hard study to get into a position to do it. Nevertheless, the door is always open in that sense, and that is why published scientific research can be trusted in a way that e.g. posts on Diaspora* can't.

Of course plausible logic is not necessarily correct logic, but that's another story.

Speaking of evidence, scientific findings can be checked, it just takes years of hard study to get into a position to do it. Nevertheless, the door is always open in that sense (...).

First off the declaration is ambiguous in that it applies both to the public validation of shocking preprint content, and to the private validation of established science by the ideally skeptical newcomer.

Second, "door always open in that sense" -- until it's done, given the absence of deadline, the fact of the possibility remaining open doesn't contrast enough for comfort, from the case of the barber shop displaying a printed "free shave tomorrow".

There is all the difference in the world between a conditional and a promise. Scientific truth is conditional, always open to revision. That's different to promising that the truth will be revealed tomorrow.

Peer review is obviously important, but it is not a hard and fast criterion. Pre-prints should be regarded as not ready, but academics who share papers with their peers don't want to present stuff that will be trashed. Conversely, some papers are withdrawn even after review if a fatal enough flaw is found in them.

Of course scientists cannot be held responsible for the bullshit that popular journalists and demagogues spout in the name of science.

As far as scepticism goes, I treat it like salt - always essential, but too much and you spoil the dish ;-)

Even conditional, apparent science may fail to have been at all established yet. I want a Frankfurt's Bullshit-proof science. Or else convene on an epistemology of bullshit quality. Has "Quality Bullshit" already been trademarked? To found a rating agency specialized in rating bullshit?

Fortunately science has provided us with the technology to be able to discuss this ;-)