[nostoc]

Going down the "Some quacks were right, therefore all quacks are right" path will not lead you to a healthy place.

Yes, there is inertia in the scientific community, and sometimes the dissenting voices have a hard time being heard. That much is true.

But that is true because most of the time, the dissenting voices are wrong, if not outright lunatics.

[headsoup]

That's not my point. My point is don't dismiss all alternative views just because someone told you to. Consider a range of views and make your own informed decisions. This should not be about being on teams, but acting like adults.

The 'misinformation' label has made it really easy to just ignore a range of views through not wanting to be in 'that group.'

> But that is true because most of the time, the dissenting voices are wrong, if not outright lunatics

That's an incredibly broad generalisation, you're going to have to back that up with evidence. Does that also include those over-enthusiastically pushing the 'right' science that is in fact later proved wrong? Or are they not lunatics, just 'the science changed' on them?

[coldtea]

>Going down the "Some quacks were right, therefore all quacks are right" path will not lead you to a healthy place.

Neither would some that disagreed were quasks so all who disagree with the mainstream are quacks, which is how they are treated.