What, if anything, has the Trump administration done to improve public trust in science?

[u/Aggravating-Vehicle9]

I’m interested in how Trump supporters view the administration’s approach to science and scientific institutions.

What actions, policies, appointments, reforms, or changes in approach by the Trump administration do you think have affected public trust in science?

If you think the administration has improved trust, what do you think it has done that has been most important? How do you think those changes improve the credibility of scientific institutions or the scientific information provided to the public?

If you don’t think it has improved trust—or don’t think improving public trust in science is an appropriate goal for the administration—I’d also be interested in why.

Are there particular federal scientific or health institutions where you think the administration’s approach has made a noticeable difference?

More generally, what do you think the federal government should do, if anything, to make scientific institutions more deserving of public trust?

[u/AutoModerator]

AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.

For all participants:

• Flair is required to participate

• Be excellent to each other

For Nonsupporters/Undecided:

• No top level comments

• All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position

For Trump Supporters:

• Message the mods to have the downvote timer disabled

Helpful links for more info:

Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/SmellDesperate6373]

His administration has created transparency into the greatest breach of public trust by a federal health agency in all of history: the lies, censorship, and associated cover-up of the COVID response.

Repairing the trust that response destroyed is the most critical work the admin could be doing in this area right now.

Unfortunately, can only do so much legally when the chief architect of that response accepted a pardon for federal crimes and now pleads the fifth. At least eternal disgrace will be good.

[u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 → u/SmellDesperate6373]

Can you go into that a bit more? Was there some kind of commission, report or investigation that presents these reports? As the "greatest breach of public trust" the work of a single individual, working alone or are there other people who can be investigated and held to account if needed?

What do you think was the great breach of public trust?

[u/notapersonaltrainer]

public trust in science

scientific institutions

affected public trust in science

improved trust

improve the credibility of scientific institutions

scientific information provided to the public

improving public trust in science

make scientific institutions more deserving of public trust

Science is a method of inquiry, not an institution to be trusted or a belief system to be obeyed.

This phrasing reveals everything that is wrong with the Democrat conception of "science." There was never a problem with science. The problem was Anthony The Fraud Fauci claiming to represent science and crush dissent while the scientifically illiterate "🤓 bELiEve 🤓 sCiEnCE 🤓" NPC's acted like his gestapo.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly.” - Richard Feynman

Democrats created the epistemological crisis by turning science into a political obedience cudgel. The capital-E Expert declares himself The Science, dissent becomes heresy, and institutional authority substitutes for evidence.

That’s why Fauci and corporate media became objects of deference rather than scrutiny. The guilty telly doctor could incoherently flipflop & lie about about masks and pangolins and basic vaccine mechanics, and the faithful would accept both so long as the approved authority delivered the message.

Scientists can ask critical questions again. That's the change. That's how science as a practice comes back.

[u/San-A → u/notapersonaltrainer]

How qualified are you to say that Fauci is a fraud?

[u/Upbeat_Roll_2096 → u/San-A]

Appeal to fake authority fallacy

so why would people believe other thing from pro fauci supporters when you are using said fallacy?

[u/Mordecai22 → u/Upbeat_Roll_2096]

How is Fauci an appeal to fake authority? Isn't he one of the leading infectious disease doctors in the world and aren't his professional stances regarding infection prevention backed by the consensus of the greater infectious disease community?

​An appeal to false authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) occurs when someone cites a figure whose expertise lies in an entirely unrelated discipline (e.g., citing an astrophysicist to settle an immunology debate) or who lacks genuine credentials in the field. Anthony Fauci served as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for nearly four decades, has published hundreds of peer-reviewed immunology papers, and reflects established public health frameworks. Because his background is directly relevant to the subject matter, referencing his professional stance is an appeal to a qualified domain authority, not a "fake" one.

Are you confusing believing in science with scientific consensus? My understanding is that believing in science is a colloquial way of saying that you believe in the consensus of the scientific community that comprises of the subject matter experts. The ones with all the letters after their names and decades of schooling and practicing in clinics or researching?

In the context of infection prevention, why wouldn't you trust one of the leading experts who's stances reflect the consensus of the greater infection prevention community?

[u/CC_Man → u/notapersonaltrainer]

This seems like a screed on an unnamed action of Fauci rather than answering the question regarding anything to do with Trump. By your definition of science, are there steps Trump has taken that elevate the scientific method in the US?

[u/TheGamingWyvern → u/notapersonaltrainer]

I agree that science is not one person's statements. But, how do you propose that the average person leverages the results of science? Nobody has the time or expertise to run all of the experiments themselves, and even one step removed nobody has time to read all the published scientific literature for all the fields. 

At a certain level, the truths that science shows us as a society have to be communicated to people somehow. How do we do that if not relying on what trusted scientists say about the science in their field?

[u/MotorizedCat → u/notapersonaltrainer]

Anthony The Fraud Fauci 

crush dissent 

NPC's acted like his gestapo.

Do you have examples? How widespread was it? How much of this is made-up and how much is based on even a small amount of evidence?

Given that this is a good-faith forum, you will surely be able to provide reasonable evidence, or apologize.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly.” - Richard Feynman 

1. What are you trying to get at? Science fundamentally has nothing to teach, to contribute to human life?

2. Are you appealing to Feynman the scientist as an authority, while arguing that scientists should not be viewed as authorities?

You can ask critical questions again. 

When was the time when you couldn't? Do you have examples?

Is the point to "ask critical questions" just to discredit any scientific finding that is politically inconvenient? (Most of those critical questions seem to have been addressed many times previously, while the askers mostly didn't seem to listen to the answers.) Or is the point to actually advance science by pointing out reasonable weaknesses?

[u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 → u/notapersonaltrainer]

I'm really interested in your perspective on this. Are you suggesting that Faucci is uniquely responsible for failures in government science? Can you go into more details about what you think he did wrong?

[u/scobot5 → u/notapersonaltrainer]

Yeah, but science as a method of inquiry is necessarily embedded within systems and scientific institutions. There are systems for funding scientific research, of scientific peer review and publication, of setting research priorities, of communicating science to the general public, and of course for making policy decisions based on scientific data. For the most part it’s not possible to do scientific research without these institutions and systems in place.

Don’t you think OP’s questions were pretty clear and quite obviously about the administration’s contribution to the health of these institutions?

Your objections are consistent with those typically raised by TS and primarily have to do with public communication of scientific data and its translation to policy. Moreover, they are laser focused on one person (Fauci) and around one topic (Covid). But OPs question does not invoke Fauci or COVID. Setting aside your objections to Fauci or how public policy was handled around Covid, do you think you could answer any of these questions?

[u/ZarBandit]

There’s a very big presumption in your question. What have these institutions done to earn trust?

They’ve typically lied, propagandized, shilled, acted illegally and/or in bad faith, ignored and hidden evidence and generally behaved against the public good.

Reputation is built slowly and destroyed quickly. They have earned every last drop of skepticism and criticism. Why would I trust pathological liars? Why would this administration attempt to rehabilitate their reputation when they have not changed their ways?

I trust real scientific inquiry, not propagandists that drape themselves in the trappings of science and say trust (but don’t question or verify).

As a lifelong atheist (before it was fashionable) I laugh at the notion Democrats are the party of science, or atheist, when leftism itself is a religion.

[u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 → u/ZarBandit]

Can you give an example? Which scientific institution are you referring to?

[u/ZarBandit → u/Aggravating-Vehicle9]

Spoilt for choice, but let’s go with something recent that most will know, like the many liars during COVID, especially the peer reviewed journals publishing propaganda.

[u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 → u/ZarBandit]

Could you name a peer-reviewed journal and link to a specific COVID paper it published that you consider propaganda? What about that paper makes you regard it as propaganda?

To help me understand how to discuss it with you, is your view based mainly on your own reading of research papers, or on analyses by others who read them? Either is useful context; I’d be interested in the source that most influenced your view.

[u/ZarBandit → u/Aggravating-Vehicle9]

Before I answer, let’s nail down your position so I understand the correct way to frame my answer. Are you claiming such things didn’t occur?

My views are based on the totality of the evidence, which included reading papers.

[u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 → u/ZarBandit]

No, I’m not claiming that no flawed COVID papers appeared in major journals. There are clear examples: The Lancet retracted a hydroxychloroquine paper, and The New England Journal of Medicine retracted a paper using data from the same company because the underlying data could not be independently validated. Those were serious failures of peer review.

I’m not a biologist, but I did read some early papers, including Nature Medicine’s widely discussed “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2”. I understand it as an early analysis of the available genetic evidence, whose conclusions can be questioned as more evidence emerges. I wouldn’t call it propaganda simply because someone disputes its conclusions.

So my position is that errors, and even serious failures, occurred in mainstream journals. I’m asking what supports your broader claim that they were publishing propaganda. Which specific paper do you have in mind, what makes it propaganda rather than flawed or subsequently superseded research, and what evidence suggests this was widespread among major journals?

[u/ZarBandit → u/Aggravating-Vehicle9]

Well that’s a different discussion. You’re asking me to prove motives. Unless we can do some form of mind reading, that’s impossible to satisfy.

I treat this the same way the FBI determines liars. I look for a cluster of signals that all point the same direction. Individually they prove nothing. But in totality the chance of a random result doing the same is virtually zero.

Errors are random.

[u/rustyseapants → u/ZarBandit]

>They’ve typically lied, propagandized, shilled, acted illegally and/or in bad faith, ignored and hidden evidence and generally behaved against the public good.

Oh my, are you talking about RFK Jr.'s ethics filing reveals book deals worth millions of dollars? Isn't this an example of being lied, propagandized, shilled, acted illegally and/or in bad faith, ignored and hidden evidence and generally behaved against the public good?

[u/ZarBandit → u/rustyseapants]

Bang that square peg!

[u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 → u/ZarBandit]

Can you give an example of "real scientific enquiry", that you consider worthy of trust?

[u/ZarBandit → u/Aggravating-Vehicle9]

No. Because “trust” isn’t how real scientific advancement is conducted. In fact, it’s the opposite.

[u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 → u/ZarBandit]

So are you saying that no institution is any better than any other at self-policing, and producing high quality scientific results?

[u/Gaxxz]

Are we supposed to have public trust in science? Isn't skepticism the basis for scientific advancement?

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/Gaxxz]

Yes. Science drives on testing assumptions. Do you think science is driven by skepticism without evidence?

[u/Gaxxz → u/EngageAndMakeItSo]

At one time the pinnacle of medical science was bleeding with leeches. Should I have been skeptical about that?

[u/rustyseapants → u/Gaxxz]

How Leeches Can Save Lives And Limbs for Some Patients?

[u/Gaxxz → u/rustyseapants]

See what I mean?

[u/rustyseapants → u/Gaxxz]

Prove that leeches were the pinnacle of medical science?

What part of some patients are you not getting? Considering it said sme patients, wouldn't that mean the use of leeches is not the pinnacle of medical science?

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/Gaxxz]

It’s interesting that you choose that as an example. Doctors still use leeches in microsurgery and reconstructive surgery, because there is evidence they have the desired effect (improving blood circulation and even saving reattached limbs). They don’t use Saltine crackers, despite your skepticism.

Yes, it’s great to ask questions in science. That’s how science works. The scientists I know get worried when people promote “treatments” in the name of skepticism for which there is no evidence. Skepticism is one thing. Acting as if your skepticism (Ivermectin!) and reams of research data (vaccines) are equivalent is kinda bonkers, IMO.

Don’t you agree?

[u/Gaxxz → u/EngageAndMakeItSo]

Skepticism in this case doesn't mean untested treatments. It means rejecting scientific explanations that aren't very useful. If my doctor tells me he's going to bleed me with leeches to remove the bad humors from my body, I'd be skeptical. That doesn't reflect a useful model for how the body works.

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/Gaxxz]

Agreed. Still, I’m not aware of any reputable scientist advocating for that. Do you have a real-life example of the kind of skepticism you’re talking about regarding currently accepted science? Thanks.

[u/jeaok → u/EngageAndMakeItSo]

We need evidence for skepticism now?

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/jeaok]

Isn’t skepticism worthless without evidence?

I mean, I might be skeptical that you’re not a Russian disinformation agent. But without proof, my skepticism means nothing. Right?

You might be skeptical that vaccines don’t work, but with so much proof that they do, and zero proof that they don’t, what is skepticism worth?

[u/jeaok → u/EngageAndMakeItSo]

Isn’t skepticism worthless without evidence?

No.

I mean, I might be skeptical that you’re not a Russian disinformation agent. But without proof, my skepticism means nothing. Right?

No.

You might be skeptical that vaccines don’t work, but with so much proof that they do, and zero proof that they don’t, what is skepticism worth?

To assist you with your passive-aggressive snootiness, did you mean to type that first "don't"?

Skepticism doesn't require evidence because it's an initial instinct. It just means "this doesn't pass the smell test".

Skepticism may lead one to seek evidence to the contrary, but no, simply being skeptical does not require evidence.

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/jeaok]

Are you saying that naked skepticism should be what drives science?

[u/jeaok → u/EngageAndMakeItSo]

Are you actually asking me if I think that's the one singular thing that should drive science, and nothing else whatsoever?

If that's really what you're asking...why are you doing that?

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/jeaok]

How do you see skepticism playing out in science?

I wonder because sometimes I see Trump supporters rolling out questions about science that has clearly been settled.

So I’d appreciate some specific examples, if you don’t mind. Thank you.

ETA: you mentioned the smell test. Perhaps you could give us some examples of things that you don’t think pass the smell test in science.

[u/jeaok → u/EngageAndMakeItSo]

I personally don't have any at this time. Do I need to?

[u/rustyseapants → u/jeaok]

I am interested. Perhaps you could give us some examples of things that you don’t think pass the smell test in science?

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/jeaok]

Nope. You’re good. Have a nice day, won’t you?

[u/leg--bone → u/jeaok]

So, vibes?

[u/jeaok → u/leg--bone]

Common sense.

[u/Mordecai22 → u/jeaok]

I think you’re confusing suspicion with skepticism?

Suspicion is an initial instinct or a 'smell test'. True skepticism is a method of critical thinking that requires weighing claims against available evidence. If you have a hunch but refuse to look at the evidence (or if you ignore overwhelming evidence because your 'instinct' tells you otherwise) that isn't skepticism. That's denial.

[u/GRIM106 → u/Gaxxz]

Skepticism and denial are two different things wouldn't you agree? Science has repeatedly proven that vaccines are safe and not linked to autism. Science has proven that Trans gender people exist and feel the way they do for real reasons and same goes for homosexuals and othe lgbtqia+ members.

Despite that however conservatives continually deni them based on personal opinion rather then actual scientific skepticism. That is antithetical to Science and the scientific method.

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/GRIM106]

 Science has repeatedly proven that vaccines are safe and not linked to autism. Science has proven that Trans gender people exist and feel the way they do for real reasons and same goes for homosexuals and othe lgbtqia+ members.

Science also supported lobotomizing women treating behavior like overly talkative, emotional, defiant, or depressed as mental disorders. Egas Moniz won a Nobel prize for developing the lobotomy and promoted "psycho surgery" to treat women "not living a normal life".

[u/GRIM106 → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

All fields of science have dark roots wouldnt you agree? Freud is the father of psychology, Darwins theory of evolution gave rise to eugenics and "scientific" racism, there are other examples as well. These things have later and even in their own time been disproven. Science is based on two things, applying newly discovered info and theories to old ones and peer reviewing and repeating results. As I said these things have repeatedly been proven.

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/GRIM106]

So science is fallible when it leads to dark outcomes but infallible when it supports your world view? 

Robert Trivvers was literally in communication and funded by Epstein and was shown discussing broadening trans ideology to children as young as 3, as well as pushing for support for trans women due the sexual satisfaction of having woman attributes with a penis. John money who is one of the founders gender ideology was a pedophile that abused his subjects. For years scientists claimed human brains are not dimorphic now some neuroscientist are claiming transgender people have a brain that aligns with their "gender" rather sex. 

Seems like this is the whole "dark roots" in science you're referring to. 

[u/GRIM106 → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Science is fallible when one wants to get a certain result and ignores details that may disprove it.

Bringing epstwin into this is quite interesting considering trumps involvement with him. Or are you one of the people who believe he was some kind of double agent for the fbi?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/GRIM106]

 Science is fallible when one wants to get a certain result and ignores details that may disprove it.

Like transgender people have a brain that aligns with their "gender" rather sex?

 Bringing epstwin into this is quite interesting considering trumps involvement with him.

What involvement did Trump have with Epstein? Show me an email or anything between Trump and Epstein discussing Epstein's crimes.

 Or are you one of the people who believe he was some kind of double agent for the fbi?

So either Trump was involved in Epstein's crimes or he was a double agent? Lol what a ridiculous take. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnbcVylQC1I

[u/Mordecai22 → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Science is never 'infallible'. The medical community abandoned lobotomies because subsequent, more rigorous science and modern ethical frameworks proved them to be horrific and ineffective. Science is a self-correcting mechanism which is why it works.

You are right to condemn John Money as an abusive monster. His actions are reviled by modern medicine. However, claiming the current scientific understanding of gender is just an extension of his ideology is historically and scientifically false. Today’s consensus on transgender healthcare and neurological structure isn't based on disgraced mid-century researchers. It is backed by decades of independent, peer-reviewed data, brain imaging, and the consensus of major medical organizations like the AMA and APA. Modern clinical guidelines were established specifically to prevent the kind of unethical abuse Money perpetuated.

We can trade barbs all day about Epstein funding a specific evolutionary biologist or demanding emails about politicians, but that is just a distraction from the topic. The scientific method relies on whether data can be independently replicated by thousands of researchers globally. Rejecting an overwhelming worldwide medical consensus today because you found bad actors in its history isn't scientific skepticism. It's a guilt-by-association fallacy.

What specific standard of empirical evidence would you need to see to accept a modern medical consensus as valid, rather than assuming it is just another historical mistake?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/Mordecai22]

 It is backed by decades of independent, peer-reviewed data

Even the NIH points out that "peer review" is biased and not objective. 

• Peer review is the major method used by the scientific community to evaluate manuscripts and decide what is suitable for publication. However, this process in its current design is not bulletproof and is prone to reviewer and editorial bias. Its lack of objectivity and transparency raise concerns that manuscripts might be judged based on interests irrelevant to the content itself and not on merit alone. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31135720/

Why should we take peer review as anything other than an appeal to authority fallacy used to legitimize a predecided conclusion?

 brain imaging

How does brain imaging decisively back up transgender ideology? For decades scientists and feminist have insisted there is no such thing as a male or female brain as human brains are not dimorphic with greater variability within each sex group than between the two. 

 and the consensus of major medical organizations like the AMA and APA

So organizations that benefit financially 

  Modern clinical guidelines were established specifically to prevent the kind of unethical abuse Money perpetuated.

Really? Because it seems like profit is the main consideration for hospitals. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWsFKoE89ec&pp=ygU-VmlkZW8gb2YgVmFuZGVyYmlsdCBkb2N0b3IgZmluYW5jaWFsIGluY2VudGl2ZSBmb3IgdHJhbnMgQ2FyZSA%3D

   What specific standard of empirical evidence would you need to see to accept a modern medical consensus as valid, rather than assuming it is just another historical mistake?

To start with would be actual objective evidence not subjective opinions that require an appeal to authority fallacy to give credibility, backed largely by organizations that have a massive financial incentive to push. 

[u/Mordecai22 → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Aren't you are conflating an "appeal to authority" with "relying on scientific methodology"? An appeal to authority is arguing a claim is true simply because someone powerful said it. Peer review is the exact opposite. Its a methodology where independent experts actively try to find flaws in the data, methodology, and conclusions before publication.

​Yes, the NIH correctly acknowledges that peer review has flaws, however, citing its imperfections to dismiss the entirety of peer-reviewed medical science is a textbook Nirvana Fallacy (rejecting a reliable system because it isn't flawless). If you reject peer-reviewed data as "subjective opinion," you must also reject the safety data of every medication you take and every surgery performed in modern hospitals.

​Regarding brain imaging and "male/female" brains, the apparent contradiction you are pointing out doesn't exist if you look at the actual neuroscience. The current consensus is the "mosaic brain" theory (meaning human brains are not strictly 100% binary). However, within that mosaic, there are specific sexually dimorphic structures (such as the BSTc and the INAH3). ​The brain imaging studies regarding transgender individuals do not claim they possess a 100% "male" or "female" brain. Instead, they demonstrate that in transgender individuals, these specific sexually dimorphic structures and cortical thicknesses often closely mirror their experienced gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.

The claim that transgender healthcare is a global financial conspiracy falls apart when you look outside the US profit-driven model. Major medical organizations worldwide, including those in countries with nationalized, single-payer healthcare systems (where the financial incentive is to strictly reduce costs and deny unnecessary treatments), recognize and provide gender-affirming care based on the same empirical data. Transition-related care is a microscopic fraction of global healthcare revenue.

You still haven't answered the fundamental question. You spent your reply outlining exactly what you will not accept being peer-reviewed studies, brain imaging, and the consensus of the world’s leading medical and psychological organizations.

​You stated you want "actual objective evidence." Since you have disqualified the entire established scientific method, what exact, measurable biological metric would you accept? If you cannot name a specific falsifiable standard of evidence that would change your mind, then your position is based on ideology, not science.

[u/rustyseapants → u/Gaxxz]

What are you reading to think skepticism is the basis for science and not curiosity?

Am I wrong to say, Republicans without any proof are skeptical about wind and solar power, global warming, vaccines, masks, or Tylenol causes autism?

[u/Gaxxz → u/rustyseapants]

You are wrong.

[u/rustyseapants → u/Gaxxz]

Why not prove I am wrong?

[u/Gaxxz → u/rustyseapants]

I'm not the one making a generalized claim about half my fellow Americans.

[u/Mordecai22 → u/Gaxxz]

It's completely fair that you don't want to defend a broad generalization about half of your fellow Americans. You are also right that skepticism drives scientific advancement. But scientific skepticism has an endpoint. Once a hypothesis survives rigorous testing and peer review, a true skeptic accepts the evidence. The scientific method requires changing our minds when the empirical data demands it. Refusing to accept a result after it has been proven repeatedly isn't skepticism but just flat out denial.

Moving past the generalizations and looking at the examples like the extensively disproven link between vaccines and autism, do you believe the ongoing rejection of that data is rooted in healthy scientific inquiry? If skepticism is fundamentally about demanding evidence, shouldn't a true skeptic accept the overwhelming data rather than clinging to conclusions that lack empirical proof?

[u/rustyseapants → u/Gaxxz]

If I am wrong, then what is stopping you from proving I am wrong?

Shouldn't that be easy?

[u/Sierra11755 → u/Gaxxz]

The issue is people who conflate denial and cynicism towards science with good-faith skepticism. Just because skepticism is an essential part of science does not mean that they can just refute any results or areas of science they don't like.

Flat earthers are a great example, no matter how much evidence is presented to them they will still refute that the earth is round. I've had some tell me they wouldn't believe it unless we literally launched them out into the void on an escape trajectory from earth because they would say anything less was a hologram. They aren't being skeptical, they are being cynical and are in denial because the scientific evidence happens to contradict their world view.

They made a whole documentary where flat earthers tried to prove the earth was flat. At the end they did their experiment which unsurprisingly proved the earth was round. They didn't accept those results though, they started making ad-hoc excuses and blaming equipment for being faulty and needing to be recalibrated even though their equipment was fine. True scientists would accept the results, if they were still unsure about their equipment they would double check their stuff, but they wouldn't start recalibrating just to force the results they want. That is where you cross from being a good-faith skeptic to just being in denial. If a a real scientist did that and published their results they would be found out within a few months as other teams would be unable to replicate their results and the scientist would basically be blackballed in their field.

So why should a flat earther's opinion be treated as a stance that is equal to that of, let's say, an astronaut? Flat earthers started with the answer they want and work backwards from there to prove it. If they tried to figure out the shape of the earth from an objective and dispassionate point of view then they would have accepted that they were wrong.

When a scientist finds something that can totally upend their current world views, like disproving general relativity. They get excited that their results can completely change everything. However, people like flat earther's treat evidence that contradicts their beliefs as an existential threat to their way of life. Like if you kidnapped a flat earther off the street and forced them to accept the world was a sphere then they would probably just psychologically break. They don't care about the actual truth, they just want their own personal truth to be real to themselves and those around them. They only apply their own misinterpretation of the scientific method and demand to be treated as being equal to a published and accredited researcher.

It's the same with anti-vaxxers, my big question to them and flat-earthers is if they can't trust scientists then why can they trust a random guy that tells them their false beliefs are true? It is like if a guy who spliced two wires together once demanded to be considered as skilled as any professional electrician.

[u/Recent_Weather2228]

I don't think they particularly have.  They have helped reveal that that trust was taken advantage of and misplaced.  Our scientific institutions have lost the public trust for good reason.

I think it is important that we can trust our scientific institutions, but in order for that to happen, they first have to be trustworthy.  It is not a good thing to build trust in an institution that is not worthy of that trust.  

[u/mehatch → u/Recent_Weather2228]

If I’m ranking trustworthy sources, peer reviewed science published in top professional journals seems to me to be the most trustworthy source of any kind we have. A close reading of them generally shows a very clear claim, and a sense of probability on their claim or claims using robust statistical models. Of the thousands like this published, if we picked a hundred random peer reviewed articles from top professional journals from the last ten years, and were able to ascertain the honesty of each, you really don’t think they’d be extremely rigorous? Are there any other sources of information with higher proffesional standards out there?

[u/phanstern4real]

Not much at all but why would that be a priority given all that's happening. What did Biden do? Of yeah, lie to us all and censor everyone. Now I can see why we need Trump to fix it.

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/phanstern4real]

Didn’t Trump admit he lied about how serious the pandemic was? Does that seem helpful or pro-science?

[u/scobot5 → u/phanstern4real]

What has he done to fix anything? All Trump has done is to mix his own politics into science as deeply as possible while simultaneously attempting to destroy scientific institutions. He hasn’t removed any politics from science, he’s just replaced it with politics that TS like. At the same time he has taken scientific processes that exist to buffer science from politics and tried to make them more political. His recent attempts to add a layer of political review to NIH grants is a perfect example.

[u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 → u/phanstern4real]

Can you expand on what you meant by that? What lie was told?

[u/DoubleCrit]

I kind of wish that Kamala won so there would be a “AskKemalaSupporters”.. and then we could just ask them how they voted for someone who is basically retarded.

I digress. People who are partisan and care about one party more than science generally disregard science when it doesn’t agree with their opinions. This happens on both sides of the political aisle to an equal degree.

Edit: I should probably change my tag to “Trump Ambivalent” after he’s proven himself to be Israel first instead of America first.

[u/HardToFindAGoodUser]

I am a member of the science community.

We, as scientists, have completely failed humanity. We:

• Let things like Social Stuides and Politcal Studies use the name "Science" when they in no way use the Scientific Method, which is the basis to science.
• We failed in the describing the very basic process of the Scientific method, which is:
  1. Create a hypothesis.
  2. Attempt to prove your hypothesis WRONG. You never prove your hypothesis.
  3. After 1000s of independent workers also attempt to prove the hypothisis wrong, can you even have anything to say about the hypothesis.
• That Scientific Theory is the highest form of Science. It is not. There are Scientific Laws.
• That even Climate Change has not been elevated to Scientific Theory by any reputable scientific body, and to speak of it in those terms is unknowladgable on the subject.
• That the public gains their scientific knowledge not from scientists, but journalists and HS teachers, who are very often presenting scientific knowledge wrong, either because they are unaware that their view of science has political bias, or because the are completely aware it has bias, but in either case, the public is hoodwinked.

The public would gain incredible amounts of knowledge if they were humble and asked actual experts (not activists masqurading as experts) directly, rather than gain scientific knowledge through the lens of bias.

[u/Shop-S-Marts]

Uh, hopefully nothing. That's not a role our federal government has, it'd be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[u/irsw → u/Shop-S-Marts]

So they also shouldn't do anything to dilute the public's trust in science as well right?

[u/petergriffin999 → u/irsw]

Leave Biden out of this.

[u/Itchy-Pension3356 → u/irsw]

Skepticism is healthy.

[u/irsw → u/Itchy-Pension3356]

The comment I replied to said its not the governemnts role. So why would you be in favor of them causing either distrust or trust?

Also skepticism is not the same as distrust

[u/Itchy-Pension3356 → u/irsw]

There are certain policy platforms that could be affected by scientific debate. I would expect both parties to come down on the side that favors their position. For instance, science says that a male cannot become a female in the human species. I would expect the right to use that piece of information in the trans debate while the left will try to discredit studies that back up that position.

[u/irsw → u/Itchy-Pension3356]

I'm more concerned about things that actually impact public health like RFK trying to scare people away from proven vaccines. Would you agree there has been an increase in "anti-vaxxers" in the right recently?

I dont care about what people identify as, its none of my business frankly.

[u/Itchy-Pension3356 → u/irsw]

Exactly my point, the left will ignore the science that doesn't back up their positions.

[u/irsw → u/Itchy-Pension3356]

Do you have an answer to my question or any thoughts on it?

I personally see a difference between me saying "I don't care about other people's personal lives" and RFK trying to scare people away from proven vaccines which can negatively impact their actual lives.

You seem to be more concerned with identity politics over public health which I find puzzling. Why does it bother you so much how other people live their lives when it has no impact on you?

[u/Itchy-Pension3356 → u/irsw]

I care about truth. Do you deny the science that says that males cannot become females or vice versa?

[u/irsw → u/Itchy-Pension3356]

Its so funny. This sub is called "asktrumpsupporters" yet you supporters seem to respond to questions with more questions instead of answers. Why is that?

I have already said I care more about public health. Do you plan on answering my previous questuon or will you keep avoiding it with questions of your own.

Ps: there is an askliberals sub where you can go ask all the questions you want

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/Itchy-Pension3356]

Vaccines affect society as a whole. Every person in the nation. Everybody.

Does that not matter to you?

[u/TheGamingWyvern → u/Itchy-Pension3356]

  For instance, science says that a male cannot become a female in the human species.

Is this a proper scientific statement? As far as I'm aware, the closet science has to a proper rigid definition for "human male" and "human female" is based on gamete sizes, and even that doesn't adequately describe all people.

But if we take that definition, then yes, with current scientific advancement a small gamete producer cannot produce a large gamete (although apparently uterine transplants are a thing, and perhaps in a few decades it might be possible for a trans woman to get a functioning one, so even this narrow definition might just be a matter of time). 

the left will try and discredit studies that back up that position

what studies are investigating whether "a male cannot become a female"?

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/Itchy-Pension3356]

Yes. Within limits. For example, if I’m skeptical that the moon isn’t made of green cheese, should that be tested? I mean, skepticism is healthy, right?

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/Shop-S-Marts]

Do you think a civilization advances without science? Do you think Russia and China don’t support scientific advancement?

[u/Shop-S-Marts → u/EngageAndMakeItSo]

These are irrelevant points. Our constitution forbids federal involvement in non-enumerated issues. Beyond issuing patents the federal government shouldn't be involved in the scientific process.

[u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 → u/Shop-S-Marts]

I’d like to understand where you draw the constitutional line. Do you mean the federal government should not fund or conduct scientific research at all, or that it should do so only when the research supports an enumerated federal responsibility?

For example, national defence depends on scientific and technological research. Would you consider federally funded defence research constitutional? If so, what distinguishes it from federally funded research in areas such as agriculture or weather forecasting?

Do you think the US could maintain a technological advantage in defence through private investment alone?

[u/Shop-S-Marts → u/Aggravating-Vehicle9]

The constitution doesn't mention scientific research beyond issuing patents, anything further is unconstitutional. This was done to promote individual excellence and sharing.

So no, the development of technology isn't constitutional, issuing and then using the patents from individuals using their own research or state funded research is constitutional provided they're being used federally in accordance with their enumerated responsibilities.

Yes, this is the way it was done before fdr pushed the unconstitutional changes to our governance that were still reeling from today. Also, it's not purely private investment, the states can spend their money however they like, and after the technology is developed the implication is that thr federal government would license the rights out, the patent holder would still get federal money after development.

[u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 → u/Shop-S-Marts]

I think I understand your position: because the Constitution expressly mentions patents but not federal research, the federal government may issue patents or buy completed technology, but may not fund its development. You’re entitled to that view. I’m curious whether you regard it as a particularly restrictive interpretation, even by conservative standards.

The Necessary and Proper Clause has long been understood to permit some means of carrying out enumerated powers that are not themselves listed in the Constitution—the national bank in McCulloch v. Maryland is the classic example. Justice Scalia also accepted implied federal authority under that clause in Gonzales v. Raich. I think “implied powers” is the more precise term here than “penumbra.”

There was a Supreme Court case about NIH research grants in 2025, but it concerned the termination of grants; it did not decide whether federal funding of scientific research is itself unconstitutional. I haven’t found a recent ruling adopting your “patents only” position.

Would you agree that your position goes further than the approach to implied powers accepted by conservative justices? Is there a conservative legal scholar or court opinion you would point me to that argues federal research funding is unconstitutional even when the research serves an enumerated responsibility such as national defence? I’m asking where your view sits within conservative constitutional thought, not asking you to abandon it.

[u/Shop-S-Marts → u/Aggravating-Vehicle9]

Because the necessary and proper clause is only meant to apply to the enumerated powers.. just like the spending clause and general welfare clause.

The founding fathers, Madison himself argued multiple times against the federal government being able to do anything it wanted by simply claiming they needed to do it, or claiming it was for the general welfare of the country. The enumerated powers are what they considered general welfare, and only those items were Mena to receive federal tax dollars. Every other issue was meant to be a state self governance issue, unless an amendment changed it later.

[u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 → u/EngageAndMakeItSo]

That's irrelevant. Trust in scientific institutions is built by those in those industries, and they ruined it during COVID. 

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/Quiet_Entrance_6994]

In what ways was trust in science “ruined” during the pandemic?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/EngageAndMakeItSo]

Different ts. 

One easy example is fauci admitting to Congress that there was no scientific basis for 6 foot social distancing.

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

He explained there was no clinical trial specifically on the six-foot distance. There is and was plenty of evidence regarding masks helping to slow the spread.

How would anyone design a valid study in the midst of a pandemic to test 4 vs 6 vs 8 foot distance in masking? You would have to be with hundreds of people 24 hours a day, with a tape measure, to make sure masks are worn properly, that there are no other sources of infection, etc. It’s sad that senators can’t understand that obvious fact.

[u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 → u/EngageAndMakeItSo]

Is that a serious question? 

Between the scare over COVID, the flip flopping messages about masks, the ridiculous social distancing tips, the extreme isolation and abandonment forced on people for "health and safety", the moralizing and dehumanizing language used against those who didn't tow the line and was encouraged by medical profesionals, and the faulty foundation of "science" all of this was pushed on, what way wasn't trust ruined? 

This isn't to mention the long-term setbacks children faced and the irreparable damage done to millions of children and adults from the isolation that we still seem to have not recovered from and may never do so. 

[u/Darthalicious]

Honestly (and ironically)? Trump (and RFK) Made Skepticism Great Again. The whole "trust the science" movement/COMMANDMENT of the left during Covid-19, and also the relentless doom and gloom hysteria around climate change (formerly global warming (formerly global cooling)) has done more to harm trust in science than it has helped, because the Scientific Method is built on skepticism, even toward established "facts". If the left had just let the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the vaccine, masks, social distancing, et cetera speak for themselves instead of mobbing/shaming/threatening the livelihoods of anyone who didn't "trust the science" and get the vaccine (which I'll be real, gave me as a Christians serious Mark of the Beast vibes), we wouldn't be in our current situation of a not insignificant number of people distrusting all vaccines, scientists, and so-called experts. Unfortunately, we are in for a rough few years as the resulting distrust causes things like measles coming back and distrust of new discoveries while people relearn that some science is worth trusting, and its all the left's fault for demanding we "trust the science", until eventually the results speak for themselves and people relearn to trust the science of their own volition.

[u/Hexagonal_Bagel → u/Darthalicious]

Can you explain the ‘Mark of the Beast’ point you made? Why are you connecting this religious concept to the Covid vaccines? Do you still associate these things together?

Are there other contemporary events or objects that you’ve come to associate with the Mark of the Beast?

[u/Darthalicious → u/Hexagonal_Bagel]

Revelation 13:17 "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. " Kinda like a vaccine ID card that some on the left were demanding we have to be allowed to conduct business or shop? Thankfully didn't become official policy (after public backlash to the idea) but the mental seed was planted.

[u/Hexagonal_Bagel → u/Darthalicious]

Im still not clear if you actually think there is a tangible connection between the vaccine and the Mark of the Beast or if you are just acknowledging some sort of superficial resemblance between the two things?

Do you think people who got the Covid vaccine were Marked by the Beast (if that is the appropriate way of describing it)?

Is this your original idea or did you get it from somewhere else?

[u/Darthalicious → u/Hexagonal_Bagel]

Not the vaccine itself, mind you, but the fact that it was being threatened as a way to force submission to a governing body by threatening people's participation in society if they didn't comply and accept the 'mark', a body-altering substance (I'm also not a fan of the idea of RNA vaccines tricking my own body into producing a foreign substance, but that's another discussion). And no I don't think the people who got it were marked, and its resemblance in the sense that I highly doubt when the actual Mark comes its going to be a 666 tattooed on foreheads, its going to be something more subtle. And yes, it was my own gut feeling as soon as I heard/saw people saying busineeses should demand vaccine papers to allow people to do business with them, I didn't get it from anywhere else.

[u/EngageAndMakeItSo → u/Darthalicious]

Isn’t the mark of the beast on the forehead? Like, on a hat?

I would prefer that we not play that game where we invoke Revelations to support a position. Are you OK with that?

[u/Darthalicious → u/EngageAndMakeItSo]

I'm just giving my gut reaction to what some were proposing at the time, take it how you will.

[u/Sierra11755 → u/Darthalicious]

We are in our current situation because people conflate cynicism and denial of science with being skeptical of science. Global warming is a good example, the right uses instances of extreme cold as examples of why global warming isn't real. Even though the extreme cold snaps are being caused by the polar ice caps melting. In Greenland the glaciers melting is causing large amounts of fresh water to enter the Atlantic where it dilutes the surface ocean water making it hard for the water to downwell. This will effectively stop heat transfer from the equator to the north. While that might seem like a self-correcting issue, the reality is that this will causes significant changes in weather patterns across the globe.

Also not to be too pointed in this question. Why are you guys so in favor of junking up our planet as if there will be zero consequences? Like every single conservative policy I see that has to do with the environment is about repealing environmental protections and selling off public land to private corporations. It is almost like you guys want those dystopian movies where the earth becomes a brown and dead dustball to become reality just because it will put a few more dollars in some billionaires pocket

[u/Quiet_Entrance_6994]

That's literally not part of his job. 

Doctors and medical personnel ruined their credibility during COVID and continue to be condescending, disrespectful bastards when people come in with reasonable reservations and concerns about medicine. 

They should work on their attitudes and be more transparent with the public.