Science Skepticism Debate

This sounds like "some science has said things I don't like, so you shouldn't refer to science as a point in an argument."

Attack the science not the scientists if you defer with their opinion.

The degree of squinting you're applying to call the results "equal" is not scientifically useful.In fact I'd suggest you consider this a clue... you're clearly explaining away, rather than explaining. "Explaining away" is in a way the most fundamentally unscientific operation there is... the fact that you're joined by a number of people who call themselves "scientists" even so doesn't change that.(No joke. The fundamental breakthrough

I think we agree more than you think ;) In my original article, I quoted some papers and studies. And on twitter, somebody occused me that "All science is crap". So I tried to write another article with only my opinion on the subject - The article linked here on HN.

Ridiculing scientists for plausible hypothesis seems very unscientific.

It's not a personal attack, it's an objective observation; it's science. Surely we're allowed to discuss science here, right?

You are not confused. you just disagree with me. That's fine. Just say you disagree.It's funny that you think a comment on HN is equivalent to a research paper on a science journal.You can call me bullshit if I ever publish a paper on this with above 4 items claiming this to be "science".Well, until then.

You're getting downvoted because- You just made up article titles to prove your point.- You call out the USA for no particular reason, because your arguments apply equally to other countries.- You don't provide any alternative to "science", which according to you is inherently flawed, which makes pretty much any discussion with you pointless.

Spoken like a true zealot. Not aligning with scientific consensus doesn't make your suggestions worthless.

"Disprove" Methinks somebody doesn't know how science works.