No. The dissent has been aired. The points have been discussed. Over and over and over. There's no echo chamber.
The problem is that some people don't want to accept the consensus view that emerges from the social practice of science. They want to keep asking the same questions, ignoring rebuttals, demanding answers, assigning blame.
You don't have to accept the consensus view. But you do have to accept that the consensus view, and you being ignored by those that do accept it, doesn't happen in 10 minutes. There was no echo chamber, dissent was tackled, and now those particular dissents are handled with disrespect, maybe.
That's life, or least that's the social practice of science. And guess what, every once in a while, the minority report is correct!
Ignoring the appeal to authority, do you do research?
I've yet to meet someone that does and doesn't see scientific institutions as flawed and human with results often driven by interpersonal and political pressures.
What's your expectation of "rigorous university education"? I attended the best University of South America and I rarely see research be conducted to standards I would call rigorous.
[ I personally do think it's extremely important to listen to the "I do my own research" crowd because that's what the scientific process demands. Sadly "science" for the left is like "freedom" for the right, a big fat jingle. ]
This suffers from the same issue as people calling blogs or whatever "journalism" (or worse, "reporting") when its nothing more than reading what other people wrote and commenting on it. Actual reporting involves going into the field, collecting information at the site, from people and devices that are there.
And so it is for research, not always, but quite often, and almost always when it really matters. You don't do "research" by reading around, certainly not in biomedical fields. You need a lab, you need samples, you need hypotheses, you need experiments.
Yes, yes, I know that sometimes meta-analysis turns up something interesting. It's useful, but it's not the rule, and its not "research".
But in the narrow sense, another Medium or Substack on why Missener et al. (invented names) haven't done their homework (let alone tweeting about it) is not a useful part of the scientific process.
Science faces a bit of a quandry: on the one hand, it is now more and more difficult to be an actual expert in more than a tiny sub-niche of a knowledge domain; on the other hand, changes in communication and distribution make it possible for many more people to have some awareness of things going on in science, and to point out errors or raise questions, at a level that the research teams cannot sensibly respond to.
Nevertheless, I still see a profound distinction between the well funded and semi-organized attempts to discredit research and knowledge that raises problems for the interests of wealth and power, and good faith acknowledgement of the many problems with the social practice of science and the reproduceability crisis.
Trust isn't only about credentials (or competence which credentials are supposedly meant to be a proxy for), but also honesty.
Get caught lying (or being generally sus, like say trying to hide conflicts of interest) enough times, and it doesn't matter if you're actually competent (or credentialed).
> or being generally sus, like say trying to hide conflicts of interest
Good point.
It's worth reminding all that the vast overwhelming bulk of vaccine and COVID disinformation trafficking on twitter and social media could all be traced back to about 12 individual sources who were SEO'ing madly to sow distrust and sell their own brands of snake oil.
