Well obviously, but that is not the counterpoint to what I was saying at all. If you see science that you don’t “believe” is true, then you need to do science to show us it isn’t true before speaking out about it. Maybe not everywhere, but at least here on HN people still prefer to take reason and proof over anecdotal stories from your undocumented and limited experiences.
Please note that I don’t mean to say your anecdotal experiences can’t be interesting, just that they can’t be used as science until you do the work to actually prove that they aren’t just your experiences.
Well if scientific paper contradicts the observable experiences from the real world, then obviously something went wrong during the experiment.
And you still believe in this paper because you didn't reproduce it yourself or you didn't see it being reproduced step-by-step in real life, you rely on this scientist who conducted the experiment reporting it legitimately and other scientists involved in peer review process to have actually read the paper and verified it through reproduction (which isn't all too common in academia btw.)
Plenty of people do blindly believe it (hence the catchphrase "believe science"). Best to combine your two statements: you don't have to "blindly believe" in it.
