I can give a steelman position to the OP argument. I can tie it to my older post about theology, which is paradigmatic disjunction. There is famous Quine proof of Underdetermination of Scientific Theory, meaning that data are not neutral towards underlying paradigm and interpretation. Therefore you do not just have The Science™, it completely relies on underlying paradigms that select what to study, how to formulate hypothesis, how to formulate and propose theories that explain data which are dependent on presuppositions.
So in the end it is just a pure conflict theory. There is no absolute The Science™, all science is instantiation of their underlying theology and paradigm onto data. Be it Socialist Science, Scholastic Christian Science, Progressive Science or even Rationalist Yudkowskian Science. In that sense the OP just hates the Progressive Science with its own paradigmatic blind spots and correctly identifies it as a Conflict Theory with Lab Leak being one of the example. Even more prominent one was the petition of The Scientists™ to allow BLM protests in the middle of pandemic as they consider racism as greater threat than COVID-19.
Also I agree that reverse stupidity is not intelligence, but stupidity is at least a hint of lack of intelligence. Reverse of stupidity of let's say paranormal science is not intelligence, but it is not a reason not to dismiss it.
I agree, that is why I wrote:
I also agree, I'd say that in my Christian worldview there is not only lack of ontological substance of evil but also of a lie, Steresis aletheias. There is infinite way of how to be wrong, but only one way to be correct in my theology. In other theologies there is only infinite ways of being wrong without any metaphysicaly objective way of aiming toward truth, as this objective truth does not even exist.
Carthesian doubt was not deep enough. He did not doubt time or language for instance. His cogito ergo sum should in proper sceptical tradition be something like sgdsjvfdngfd lshgfk h lsng, only even more stupid, as he should doubt meaning of very language.
This cannot be true as there should be way to doubt your paradigmatical grounds, otherwise it is just pure dogma. In other words you are just asserting grounds of your paradigm as correct without any justification, thus basically creating a new fairy tale.
More options
Context Copy link