Believing that science can tell you the truth gives rise to all sorts of flawed logic based on that misplaced belief (false axiom).

Science takes measurements of Reality (all of which are intrinsically biased, even when we try our best not to be), and then uses those measurements to create a model. Science never makes definitive statements about Reality, but probabilistic statements about our models of it.

E.g., "I'm 95% sure that in this specific little tiny part of the larger model I'm looking at, the input to output will be as I predict."

This probabilistic statement, i.e. non-definitive statement ensures that at best science can only ever get closer to a model that perfectly reflects Reality. It can never reach that point, because it never makes any definitive statements. It only gets "closer" (at best). It very often fails, it is constantly debated, and it sometimes pushes us further from the Truth, even without fraud. It is also subject to fraud, just like everything else.

All of the statements above rely on the false axiom that Science is somehow Truth. Until people understand what science is, they will continue to use it as a religion, and call it the opposite. They will justify their complete lack of understanding of what science is as "intellectual superiority".

They are the shadow speakers, telling us all about what is "really" on the cave wall.

Oof. Those hurdles.

I still love that MIT research paper from a while back that studied the psychology of the “anti-vaxxer” and they found that they are on average “highly intelligent” and “prefer to read primary sources for themselves.”

And their solution was to hide primary sources from the public so they can obfuscate and control, even further, the narrative of the studies.

It’s a Pity what communism has turned the American education system into.

This is just another run at bashing anyone who questions the NWO’s propagandists who masquerade as scientists. They can’t handle the fact we can breakdown data, expose the flaws in their narrative, and point out their relationships with big businesses.

The problem I have with science is it is all based on only things we know so far. 80 years ago we didn't know radiation would kill you...was that a failure of science or had we just not scienced hard enough yet? Theoretically we could discover some new form of matter tomorrow and half of what we know could be thrown out the window which would also mean our science was wrong.

Stating science as 100% fact is anti science because we aren't omniscient.

It's unscientific to automatically 'believe' in science.

Can't fix stupid.

Or maybe it’s just this simple: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

So are they 'anti-science' for things like https://c19ivermectin.com ?

Of course they are because they a) think the sources lack credibility. b) identify with groups that have 'dogma-the-media-told-me-was-true' attitudes, c) it's a message that contradicts their beliefs, d) and it's mismatch between how a message is presented and their style of thinking (eg. not thinking, but being told what to think by their mainstream news).

So they don't mean 'anti-science' they mean 'anti-dogma-the-media-told-me-was-true'

The definition of science is that it must be able to be falsified. (see: Popper)

If a statement cannot be falsified, then it is not science.

Science is a god I choose not to worship.

I don’t leave all the thinking to the ‘experts’.