The truth has been spoken

I don't think that trusting scientists makes one lazy. They know more than you about their field because duh, they studied it. That said I understand that not everyone knows how to properly read a scientific article (as in, how to assess the methodology, the sample used, the statistic significance of the results etc etc). I can usually tell when someone who claims to have "done their research" is being disingenuous and has only read bad articles supporting their view, but not everyone can. In that sense, I agree that blind trust in "scientists" is as bad as blind trust in a politician.
All that said, in the last few years I've noticed a strong anti-intellectual sentiment present among many people, and I don't think that's good either.

Intellectuals have never been any more or less fallible than politicians.

If you wanna get philosophical, then yes all humans are equally flawed. But have you ever done research? Like, formulated a research question and used scientific publications and data to find the answer to it? Because it's actually pretty hard to create your own conclusions and twist the data to support it. Much more so if you want to have your work published in a magazine, that shit is vetted like you wouldn't believe.
It's good to be critical towards the things you read, no doubt. Question everything, take nothing for granted. But using "eh a scientist can be wrong too" as a justification for giving the same platform to a guy who spent 30 years doing rigorous research and a guy who dropped out of middle school and watched some YouTube conspiracy videos is not the right way to go.

Than it's a good thing I don't do that.
Follow the money, notice the trends, look at the narrative.
Even in this pandemic we've seen massive shifts clearly encouraged by those with something to gain. Alarmists call for immediate rash action and move the posts when they are wrong, politicians make it profitable to confirm certain conditions and hypotheses. Especially when the researchers do good work, what doesn't meet an approved narrative is altered, buried, or ridiculed. Such as Taiwan trying to inform the WHO of their observations, or that time when the CDC was used to study gun violence and Obama didn't like the result.
And then look at historical precedent. Eugenics, depopulation, war, lobotomies, etc. All backed by expert authorities.

Okay, so your issue isn't with scientists or research institutions but politicians using power to either undermine or uplift certain research for political reasons? If so, I wholeheartedly agree, this is why you always assess who the research is coming from, why they're concluding what they're concluding, who's above them, and why you push for freedom of research, which in my opinion is as important as freedom of the press, if not more.
The WHO unfortunately doesn't operate in a vacuum. The Taiwan situation, as shitty as it is, happened because China is a pretty important player in the international system right now, and at least in the beginning had the best conditions to study how the virus acts due to the number of cases and lack of control. Now I still think it's stupid to trust China at all, seeing as they lied from the start and still do, but it sorta makes sense within the broader international context. (1/2)

That said I'd like to see evidence that "what doesn't meet an approved narrative is altered, buried, or ridiculed". Maybe by politicians but definitely not by any scientific magazine worth its marbles (or however that saying goes). The scientific community does vet itself quite rigorously as I've mentioned.
As for your point about eugenics and the rest, the point of science is to change with new information. The point of science is progress. A non-falsifiable hypothesis is a bad hypothesis. The fact that we know that people in the past were wrong is a good thing.
There definitely is a discussion to be had about the relationship between power and knowledge. There is also a discussion to be had sbout the politicization of health itself. Unfortunately the character limit is a thing here and I don't want to have to write 20 comments in a row. But both of those topics are probed by Foucault, I think you should give some his stuff a read, it's pretty good. (2/2)

I want to briefly intercede- keeping in mind I am a man of science and believe strongly in science- that historically, politics and science have always been linked throughout history. For funding or just the ability to be able to publish or even not be killed- scientists and their research and funding have held to certain false narratives due to politics and culture.

Even if we discount early science as science and dismiss the disciplines persecution of “heresy” against the church that demanding “earth centric” views of the universe and creationism and “young earth” and all that- even in the 20th century matters of race and politics- communism and capitalism and such- have tainted even mainstream science. Doctors refused to subscribe to a theory of germs and even refused to wash because they believed that it implied they were of a lesser character and standing than they were.

Between secrecy and politics and economics we have seen facts distorted or fabricated concerning nuclear material and radiation, nuclear power and so on.

It’s a long list. I’m not saying that all scientists are quacks or in someone’s pocket or lacking integrity or such. But I am saying that science and scientists are not above question. I’m saying that governments and corporations and even scientists have lied and covered things up for “the public good” or the “greater good” or self good or whatever “good.”

And as for publication- sadly not. While there are reputable sources in science- most scientists of various types will speak at length to the fakes of the present state of the “pay to publish” scientific environment we are in. Strides have been made by many in the last decade- but even in the 2000’s independent actors were able to get larger reviews to publish research that was plain garbage but looked good.

Paper upon paper and study after study exist to show that certain things are more likely to get bad research published. And surprisingly- many in science aren’t the best at math or simply don’t care to actually check it- as one thing that has been repeatedly citied to lend credibility to baloney research is throwing in lots of complex and often nonsensical math to the paper.

You can question the research or the findings, the methods or the conclusions- but isn’t that what famousone is talking about? Aren’t you doing exactly what he is saying if you do? Scientists can and do disagree. Papers conflict, and if you take the time to read them- many papers give conclusions that a person knowledgeable in the subject can look at the boring data parts most people and news don’t read- and say the conclusion is either overstated or completely contrary to what they read in the data.

Firstly, I appreciate the earnest response. It's refreshing.
It's ingrained very deeply from both my American and Tribal heritage to be suspicious of authority and jealously guard my own autonomy and livelihood.
Secondly, there was no precedent to trust China or the current WHO leadership. A trend has been established of favoritism and dishonesty since at least the Obama administration (I'm not claiming he was a conspirator, just the timeline).
And my problem with the popular narratives is that it ain't researchers directing the EPA, FDA, or proposing Green New Deals and trying to legislate or mandate for technology that doesn't exist in the foreseeable future.
Some information that has been corrupted by those in power include Taiwan being ignored when they had confirmed human to human Covid spread as far back as 2019, US ER doctors and nurses being silenced for contradicting that the crisis is national rather than localized to large population centers, and the narrative shift from

And that itself is another issue- seldom do we read or hear directly from “hard scientists” who actually do the work, voicing their research in detail. We get news outlets that scan conclusions and abstracts for “exciting” things, mouth pieces of science who may or may not be competent or actually have done any work themselves- but can speak in a way of authority or captivation- and “hard scientists” summarizing the parts of their research they want you to focus on.

"Flatten the curve" to "Not until there's a vaccine", nevermind that viruses don't work like that, and some bad medicine being pushed throughout. For one, you don't use ventilators the way politicians and non-medical military officers are or were pushing for them to be used.
I would love to read Foucault, but I'm kinda backed up going through Grossman's works so I'll have to put a pin in that.
Again, I appreciate the respect and civility you're extending to me, and hope I'm reciprocating.

Tl;dr There's too much politicized science currently and throughout history for me to trust them solely on the basis of being experts.

This creates an environment where labs and their sponsors are aware that part of writing a paper that you want noticed is less scientific and more like formulating a press release, using the right language and key words and phrasing (which media will then likely add their own polish to). It grabs attention from the press and the public. There are games and politics to science. Ask Tesla about that or many more contemporary minds. Sadly- science isn’t the pure pursuit of knowledge we would hope. It’s also not a mindless puppet or self serving sham. We must trust to a degree, but always maintain a skepticism and burden of proof beyond the lab.

Sorry @famousone. Didn’t mean to interrupt. And you raise some poignant considerations. Not that @eqwa doesn’t have some as well.

So- does every worker making minimum wage believe the hours of their life are only worth $8 or whatever? Does every person doing a job think that their pay is worth what they do? No. Their OPINION is often that they are underpaid right? That’s a common opinion. “I am not paid/valued enough for what I do.” But- the reality is... they still do the work because wether it is what their opinion says they are worth... it’s what they can get.

And so it goes- each and every little screw and nut and the thousands of tiny resistors and capacitors and such on every circuit board and part of the car were supplied by someone or made from materials supplied by someone who looked at the cost they paid for the labor and energy and etc to have something to sell. If we go far enough back and distill things down enough- there is a single guy with hand tools mining up raw materials from the earth.

He had gold, or iron etc. that someone wants to use to make something to use or sell. And what sets the cost of this iron if it was dug up with tools made by the man by hand and processed to an I got by the man using wood he chopped for free on a fire that cost him nothing? Well... nothing does. The man does. His opinion- he’s going to say what he thinks the work he did to get that iron is worth, and the guy buying it is gonna decide it is or isn’t worth it. Some other guy will have iron too. And he may decide his is worth more or less. The guy who sells too cheap will run out of iron quick and go under. The guy who’s opinion is his iron is worth too much more wont find anyone to buy the iron so will either quit, or end up working for no reason. And of course- if no one anywhere is willing to pay even what the cheapest opinion of the value is- then likely no one is going to bother producing iron because it isn’t worth their time.

So that $35,000 sticker price isn’t a reality- it’s an opinion based on opinions. A commodity brokered in a market driven by stocks- an economy and the stock market are quite literally collective opinions. When people have a poor opinion that a company will do well- that company suffers isn’t he market. When people see a company and their opinion is that it will do well- it flourishes in the market. Reality shapes opinion and opinion shapes reality. But in the end, society and perception and economics are simply an agreement. That agreement may be contrary to our opinions or not.

Most people are of the opinion that certain corporations or industries or even economic systems are destructive or repugnant or abusive- and yet those entities often thrive no?

The guy who doesn’t offer $500 on the $35,000 car is most certainly not going to get it for $500. Less likely even than the very unlikely chance the guy offering $500 had. But if everyone offers $500 and refuses to budge... then corporations find a way to do it for $500 or they become obsolete and vanish.

This can lead to good- or bad. As we see with the Walmart’s and Amazons of the world, people demanding that a lamp that used to be $300 cost $50 and shipping that used to be $50 and take a week be free and next day- these things can and do happen. The cost there has been that to make that happen the burden is placed on workers, things are outsourced to places where the laws allow the mistreatment and devaluation of labor and health which facilitates the ability.

Simply put- opinions are opinions but opinions do not change certain realities like a need to eat. You can change a persons opinion or override it simply through desperation. Somewhere there is someone desperate enough and without options that they will do almost anything and at great disparity. And on the other end you can easily get people to act contrary to opinion or morality through convenience and comfort or other self gain.

Case in point- you have a 2012 Hondabishi El flagrante ST car. Your mechanic quotes you $2000 for a fuel pump. All the old school mechanics you talk to say it should be no more than $100. All the places you call say it should be $1000. This guy is ripping you off! Well... hold on. The old school guys are 1. Thinking of prices in 1970, and 2. Their cars have very simple pumps that are easy to get to, a few screws on an access panel with no special tools.

The El Flagrate has a high modern pump that you need a super special $1200 tool just to get out or you’ll ruin the fuel system, and the entire back seat and the tank have to come out of the car. It takes 4-6 hours not the 1 hour the old school guys are used to.

But your other sources that say your cars pump should be $1,000? Well- they are thinking you are talking about the pump on the ENGINE. Your car has high pressure direct injection. There is a pimp in the tank, and a pump on the engine! The one on the engine needs a special tool too- but it’s right there in the open. The part is more expensive but the labor is much cheaper than to replace the one in the tank. So you go to the guy who said $1000 and he tells you “it’ll be $2000. It’s the other pump.”

YOU didn’t know enough to ask the question right or to understand the question you were asking let alone the answers. The experts and sources you used were filtered through what YOU know, but since your knowledge isn’t able to understand the problem... the answers you got were wrong for the problem you were looking at.

At some point- we have to trust experts in any field or we have to learn enough and gain the experience to be an expert ourselves. It’s rare to impossible to find a human who is an expert at everything so even the most accomplished humans will eventually have to trust another human did their job. So the important skill is really- being able to vet who is a trust worthy source to take that leap on when you don’t have the ability to really understand something.