If you really wanted to make a good case against the "prevailing science narrative" (by which I assume you mean dysfunctional and /or corrupt corporate-state institutions), you would simply cite REAL scientific dissidents, of which there are many.
Leave off the added conspiracy bs and the claims you are attempting to make will look much m…
If you really wanted to make a good case against the "prevailing science narrative" (by which I assume you mean dysfunctional and /or corrupt corporate-state institutions), you would simply cite REAL scientific dissidents, of which there are many.
Leave off the added conspiracy bs and the claims you are attempting to make will look much more credible.
As it is it looks like you are violating one of the basic principles of scientific-rationalism (objectivity), which is that say that you started with a narrative (a subjective set of ideas and values) and then cherry picked data, facts and evidence to fit that narrative.
If you want to argue for better science you use the scientific method.
If you are making a political argument against the corrupt nature of the political and economic establishment, your argument should PRIMARILY focus on the failure of the establishment to legitimize itself and gain the support of citizens.
One approach to reforms is working inside the system, usually via incremental changes.
Another is more sweeping, and populist and disruptive to entrenched power and wealth.
To be clear, the main problem with "science" now is that it has been corrupted by elite power and wealth, corporate influence.
One of the political tactics of right wing astroturfers* is to reframe an issue such as "medicine and bureaucratic corruption" (or "climate change" etc) merely to do damage to "the left".
What those right astroturfers are NOT doing is actually improving science.
If you really wanted to make a good case against the "prevailing science narrative" (by which I assume you mean dysfunctional and /or corrupt corporate-state institutions), you would simply cite REAL scientific dissidents, of which there are many.
Leave off the added conspiracy bs and the claims you are attempting to make will look much more credible.
As it is it looks like you are violating one of the basic principles of scientific-rationalism (objectivity), which is that say that you started with a narrative (a subjective set of ideas and values) and then cherry picked data, facts and evidence to fit that narrative.
If you want to argue for better science you use the scientific method.
If you are making a political argument against the corrupt nature of the political and economic establishment, your argument should PRIMARILY focus on the failure of the establishment to legitimize itself and gain the support of citizens.
One approach to reforms is working inside the system, usually via incremental changes.
Another is more sweeping, and populist and disruptive to entrenched power and wealth.
To be clear, the main problem with "science" now is that it has been corrupted by elite power and wealth, corporate influence.
One of the political tactics of right wing astroturfers* is to reframe an issue such as "medicine and bureaucratic corruption" (or "climate change" etc) merely to do damage to "the left".
What those right astroturfers are NOT doing is actually improving science.