Critical Thinking Vs. Trusting “The Science”

Brandon Smith writes at his blog Why Don’t People “Trust The Science?” Because Scientists Are Often Caught Lying.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

There has been an unfortunate shift in Western educational practices in the past few decades away from what we used to call “critical thinking.” In fact, critical thinking was once a fundamental staple of US colleges and now it seems as though the concept doesn’t exist anymore; at least not in the way it used to. Instead, another brand of learning has arisen which promotes “right thinking”; a form of indoctrination which encourages and rewards a particular response from students that falls in line with ideology and not necessarily in line with reality.

It’s not that schools directly enforce a collectivist or corporatist ideology (sometimes they do), it’s more that they filter out alternative viewpoints as well as facts and evidence they do not like until all that is left is a single path and a single conclusion to any given problem.

They teach students how to NOT think by presenting thought experiments and then controlling the acceptable outcomes.

For example, a common and manipulative thought experiment used in schools is to ask students to write an “analysis” on why people do not trust science or scientists these days. The trick is that the question is always presented with a built-in conclusion – That scientists should be trusted, and some people are refusing to listen, so let’s figure out why these people are so stupid.

I have seen this experiment numerous times, always presented in the same way. Not once have I ever seen a college professor or public school teacher ask students: “Should scientists today be trusted?”   Not once.

This is NOT analysis, this is controlled hypothesis. If you already have a conclusion in mind before you enter into a thought experiment, then you will naturally try to adjust the outcome of the experiment to fit your preconceived notions. Schools today present this foolishness as a form of thinking game when it is actually propaganda.

Students are being taught to think inside the box, not outside the box.
This is not science, it is anti-science.

Educational programming like this is now a mainstay while actual science has taken a backseat. Millions of kids are exiting public schools and universities with no understanding of actual scientific method or science in general. Ask them what the equations for Density or Acceleration are, and they’ll have no clue what you are talking about. Ask them about issues surrounding vaccination or “climate change”, and they will regurgitate a litany of pre-programmed responses as to why the science cannot be questioned in any way.

In the alternative media we often refer to this as being “trapped in the Matrix,” and it’s hard to think of a better analogy. People have been rewarded for so long for accepting the mainstream narrative and blindly dismissing any other information that when they are presented with reality they either laugh at it arrogantly or recoil in horror. The Matrix is so much more comfortable and safe, and look at all the good grades you get when you say the right things and avoid the hard questions and agree with the teacher.

Given the sad state of science in the West these days surrounding the response to covid as well as the insane and unscientific push for forced vaccinations, I thought it would be interesting to try out this thought exercise, but from an angle that is never allowed in today’s schools:

Why don’t people trust the science and scientists anymore?

This is simple: Because many scientists have been caught lying and misrepresenting their data to fit the conclusions they want rather than the facts at hand. Science is often politicized to serve an agenda. This is not conspiracy theory, this is provable fact.

That’s not to say that all science is to be mistrusted. The point is, no science should be blindly accepted without independent examination of ALL the available facts. This is the whole point of science, after all. Yes, there are idiotic conspiracy theories out there when it comes to scientific analysis, but there are a number of scams in the world of science as well.

Most people have the capacity to sift through scientific data as long as it’s transparent. When the facts are obscured or spun or omitted this causes confusion, and of course only the establishment scientists can untangle the mess because they are the ones that created it.

There are clear and openly admitted ideological agendas surrounding covid science which have nothing to do with public health safety and everything to do with political control.

When you have the head of the World Economic Forum applauding the covid pandemic as a perfect “opportunity” to push forward global socialist centralization and erase the last vestiges of free markets and individual liberty, any rational person would have to question if the covid science is also being rigged to support special interests.

Luckily, the covid issue is so massive that it is impossible for them to control every study. Instead, the establishment ignores the studies and data they don’t like.

Science is quickly becoming a political religion rather than a bastion of critical thought. Conflicting data is ignored as “non-science” or even censored as “dangerous.” Government and corporate paid studies are treated as sacrosanct. Is it any wonder that so many people now distrust the science?

Any reasonable person would have questions and suspicions. Those who do not have been indoctrinated into a cult they don’t even know they are a part of.


Connor Harris connects this subservient attitude to the prevailing progressive post-modern mindset;
See Why the Leftist Backlash Against Ivermectin

Liberals have no monopoly on gullibility or lazy journalism, but the biased coverage of ivermectin springs from one of the worst pathologies of liberal discourse in particular: conflation of respect for science with fealty to established scientific institutions. A “pro-science” disposition has long been integral to American liberals’ self-conception (a ubiquitous yard sign reads, in part, “In this house, we believe science is real”); it grew especially strong during the George W. Bush years as a reaction to the administration’s stance on global warming and alliance with the religious Right.

But most Americans are scientists neither by training nor by temperament, and “pro-science” politics usually calcifies into blind trust in a few politically congenial authorities—such as universities and government health agencies, which have enjoyed high levels of liberal confidence throughout the pandemic despite such actions as reversing longstanding advice on face masks based on a dubious judgment call.

Conflating science with the scientific establishment not only corrodes the capacity for skepticism but also helps questionable or corrupt actions by authorities escape scrutiny. The hullabaloo over ivermectin poisoning, for example, far exceeds the attention given to another questionable treatment pushed not by right-wing hucksters but by the FDA itself: remdesivir, an antiviral produced by the pharmaceutical giant Gilead Sciences that is still the only Covid-19 treatment with full FDA approval.




  1. Jewish Young Professional "JYP" · December 20, 2021

    This articulated a lot of what has bothered me about the “believe science” or “pro-science” mentality. A “pro-science” mentality also means reporting conflicting data, acknowledging limitations in study design and data gaps, and asking questions. Questioning and acknowledging gaps and limitations doesn’t mean ignoring things with overwhelming evidence towards a particular conclusion, but it also doesn’t mean ignoring inconclusive data. I just feel as though “believe science” is dogmatic in an off-putting way. And I am a science major and I find the messaging off-putting


  2. thecovidpilot · December 20, 2021

    I think that you’re underestimating the impact of pharma’s marketers on science writers. There’s almost certainly tremendous corruption there.

    Sure, there’s some laziness and herd-following involved as well. Pharma spends more on marketing than on product development. Let that sink in.

    Remember that fiercepharma article I linked in a comment on another post? Follow the money.

    Title: “Pfizer plans DTC effort to pitch COVID-19 shot safety, joining a fall flurry of vaccine messaging”


    “Pfizer’s Hwang also said the pharma is backing the “Stronger” marketing campaign supported by the biotech industry’s trade association, BIO. That national effort aims to stop the spread of misinformation around vaccines—and stop the war on truth and science.

    The digital advocacy campaign is “the first vaccine advocacy campaign to focus on the root cause of vaccine hesitancy—misinformation.” Its run by non-profit Public Good Projects (PGP).

    The “Stronger” website advocates taking actions such as blocking, banning, reporting and warning others about vaccine misinformation. It also encourages people to stand up for experts and specifically advises people to follow well-known public health voices such as former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and former FDA Acting Chief Scientist Luciana Borio.”

    “Misinformation,” of course, is anything that opposes pharma’s narrative, including articles about clotshot deaths and other adverse events.


    • Ron Clutz · December 20, 2021

      CP, that is even more discouraging than the story how Lancet was corrupted with HCQ disinformation


      • thecovidpilot · December 20, 2021

        Ok, but why should we be surprised? Pharma has been caught before lying in its marketing and defrauding consumers.


  3. thecovidpilot · December 20, 2021

    BMJ is the only journal taking a hard look at vaccines.


  4. HiFast · December 20, 2021

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.


  5. Rhonda Maloney · December 21, 2021

    If you want hard proof that the government is doing this type of brainwashing, get hold of the essay questions for the TAKS Test (Texas). I was monitoring the test and illegally read the assigned essay students had to write: discuss why it is better to live in a city than in a rural area. Similar questions promoting a specific agenda were phrased so that the student had to support liberal ideas.


  6. Pingback: Critical Thinking Vs. Trusting „The Science“ – Climate-

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s