True but people also use this as an excuse to dismiss any research they disagree with which is idiotic.

Most research is legit. It just might not be interpreted correctly, or it might not be the whole picture. But it shouldn’t be ignored because you don’t like it.

People are especially prone to this with Econ research in my experience.

This is a clean example of an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

Statement B attempts to use Statement A to make an unrelated point that isn't necessarily untrue, but it is still unrelated.

This could be done with any combination of...

"Under capitalism, is..."
"Under , science is..."

They would all result in a statement that supports Speaker B, but is no longer relevant to what Speaker A stated, as the topic has changed. In this case, from science to capitalism.

I.e. It's an anti-capitalism meme attempting to use science to appeal to a broader audience through relevance fallacy. Both statements may be true, but do not belong in the same picture.

Unless, of course, "that's the joke" and I'm just that dumb.

Edit: I'm not a supporter of capitalism. But I am a supporter of science—haha, like it needs me to exist—and this is an interesting example of social science. It seems personal opinion is paramount to some individuals rather than unbiased assessment of the statement as a whole. Call me boring and autistic, but that's what science be and anything else isn't science, it's just personal opinion, belief, theory, etc.

This statement is ~~on the verge of being~~ a strawman argument. The first compares science to other systems of knowledge, while the second criticizes the subjects of scientific study under a capitalist influence.

These two statements do not refer to the same thing in context.

Edit: clarity

This is why the last step of science is broad consensus, which has solved literally every single example of bad science in this entire thread. All this means is people should pay more attention to sources.

Let's also not forget that Scientists are also humans. Humans with their own beliefs and biases which do get transferred into studies. Peer review can help reduce that but since peers are also humans with their own biases, but also common biases shared amongst humans it's not bulletproof either.

There will always be some level of bias which clouds judgement, or makes you see/think things that aren't objectively true, sometimes it comes with good intention, others not so much. It's always there though, and probably always will be. The key to good science is making it as minimal as possible.

Science doesn't change just because some groups try to use it to forward an agenda.

Science is the process of getting things a little less wrong.

If you catch your friends using Science as a religion, tell them they're not a skeptic, they're a cunt.

Why not both?

What's decided to be worthy of study is subjective. The process to hypothesize, experiment, and conclude what's being studied is objective.

The fact that capitalism taints everything it touches is not a criticism of the things it touches.

Science is a method of empiricism and inductive logic.

There's antitrust litigation against the publishers. Here's one article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/09/16/scientists-file-antitrust-lawsuit-against-six-journal-publishers/

science is science. it can be (sometimes necessarily) prioritized via societal influence, culture and monetary means.

socialist countries have different types scientific spend but I don't see femboys taking things in the ass for them I guess.

Nihilism is fun! Science as a framework for truth seeking, and big S Science are functionally different things. Nobody is making the argument that Science is free from political or economic bias, or even that empiricism is the sole arbiter of truth. Literally just finish reading Kant, I'll wait.

On the other hand, you can look at the world and very plainly see that science... does things. It discovers truth with a far better track record than every other imperfect epistemology. But sure, capitalism bad. Twitter man cringe. And the internet is just like, an opinion, or something.

Source (of drawing)?

And under socialism in the 20th century, science was an institution that only funds research that advances whatever narrative the hermetic powers-that-be decided to push and strengthen their grip on power, their obsession with secretiveness and projecting an image of infallibility.

Take the Soviet Union.
T.D. Lysenko and his crackpot food engineering ideas is one such glaring example. But boy oh boy could he talk a "toe the party line" game and suck up to Stalin.
Or how about how the kremlin rendered nearly one quarter of Kazakhstan uninhabitable due to their relentless nuclear testing. And they nearly did that for all of western Europe with Chernobyl.

In the name of workers and science, we shall poison your land. Science for the workers' paradise, rejoice, comrades!

OK and? Also source?

Critical theory, my beloved