Comment by jongjong

> We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted. Studies have shown that studies cannot be trusted. I err on the side of caution.

What does this mean for you in practice? Do you see just fluoride studies this way, or "studies" in general? If the former, what makes those different? If the latter, what is your stance on science-backed decision-making and policymaking in general?

> Studies have shown that studies cannot be trusted.

Well, that's basically the end of the debate, isn't it? Before we can have reasonable discourse, everyone has to agree on some points. Sure, individual studies have problems. That's why we make them reproducible and aggregate the results. So yeah, don't trust some individual paper; but if you're distrusting the aggregate, well, you're distrusting all of science.

> Nobody can perceive objective reality. Everyone is delusional concerning just about everything.

This is the entire point of the scientific method. It's why we make sure tests are reproducible by other people in other teams in other countries. Each with their own funding and biases. What remains after all of that is as close to objective reality as possible without decompiling the universe.

> Dark times are ahead, I'm afraid, and people's trust-meters are going to be valuable again.

You know what else has been shown to be unequivocal bullshit? People making decisions based on their "gut". Your personal "trust-meter" is just another form of that. Dark times are indeed ahead, but it's because there are people out there who want to do whatever the hell they want- and it's easier for them to get away with it if they discredit science and get the population to do so as well. This is what you're helping by spreading such things. Please stop.

> We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted

> Nobody can perceive objective reality. Everyone is delusional concerning just about everything

This is just hyper-cynical fear mongering. An excuse to reject inconvenient things you see and substitute them with your own alternative reality.

The people who sell fear and things like alternative medicine love to push this angle: They want you to distrust everything. Everything except what they tell you, of course.

> We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted. Studies have shown that studies cannot be trusted

the growing prevalence of anti science thinking like this has been a disaster for humanity. There's so much time and good faith effort put into trying to better understand our reality then people like you come along and handwave it all away because "well can we really know anything"

How does one live or even function with no trust? You’re going to do your own experiments on everything in your life? Do you purchase any food, take any medicines, travel in any vehicles, or use any technology? You’re relying on products that are the outcome of studies if you do. Sure people are fallible and sometimes have agendas or are wrong, but approaching objectivity is not impossible, it just takes a little work. Science is the best thing we’ve got, it has brought humanity further and faster than anything else ever. There’s nothing else to even compare it to. If we throw our hands up and insist on trusting no one, dismantle public health and public education and public trust, then yeah we could go back to the dark ages. If instead we trust that science works over time, and we are diligent about electing leaders who stop stoking fears and using pseudoscience and intentionally eroding trust in science and education, then we might have the chance to be able to trust each other and make forward progress.