If you cannot question it, it isn't science

:p

So, so true.

If you can question it, it’s questionable. If you’re not whiling to hear the answer or debate, don’t ask any question and say it’s propaganda

Questioning the validity of science is a part of science. (if you hadn't skipped class in high school science, you'd know this).

But to the point- this is what peer review is. Other scientists review the data. Even do their own experiments. And see if they get the same results.

Here's the thing- y'all don't do that. At all.

Most of the time, you have a pre-conceved idea of what things really are, and when you're presented with facts you reject them.

Not question. Not review. Not consider.

You flat reject reality.

You rarely question. You refuse to accept the truth.

Ya sure, you’re the truth teller o sage of leftist propaganda.

Finally, someone with intelligence in the comments section.

Criticism of received wisdom is good — take it a step further

We set up an organization to criticize the critics of science. Consider we call it super-science — then we’ll know for sure whether science or the critics are right

Good one, MAGA

No, no one is questioning the ones doing the questioning. They’re just calling them bigots, idiots, criminals, etc.
That’s not questioning; it’s bullying. There’s a fallacy for that, called ad hominem abusive, in which you insult the person with a contrary opinion rather than reason with them. If no one is even allowed to question something without facing total ridicule, we’ve abandoned the responsibility of both science and truth-seeking (and btw, this responsibility is ignored in both science and politics). And that is a responsibility that should be held in high regard.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I was thinking about this specifically. Fact-checking is another example of this, dealing with the day-to-day news rather than the defense of the overall scientific method.

Basically, those who toss out unsubstantiated claims should be prepared to face criticism of their own, at the same level of scrutiny they apply to others. And whenever they do, their criticisms generally crumble.

well there’s nothing wrong with being skeptical of skeptics. The question is, do you have a good point or not? Because if you’re just calling skeptics who have actual points “idiots”, and people can read your review much quicker than they can with the other (because people are lazy), then you’re convincing people with very weak points.
Fact-checking is good if you’re doing responsible research and actually trying to find information. However, I would do that myself, because fact-check sites are ridiculous at this point. I’d trust the media before I’d trust them, because they do exactly what I’m saying is bad reasoning. (And the media does, too, but not as extreme.)

Yes, I agree with that. If you’re criticism is weak, it should be met with criticism, and even if it isn’t weak, it can still be met with decent criticism. We don’t know everything, so reasoning is indeed our best bet. But to the information consumer (or researcher, or whatever you’d call it), it would be the best idea to read both sides. We live in a world full of manipulative indoctrinators, and I’ll tell you a secret. The side that you find wasting quality time to insult the other side for even having a contrary opinion probably has the weaker argument. Have you ever been in an argument with someone in which you know they’re wrong, but as soon as you even start to prove your point against them, they immediately resort to talking about how stupid or problematic you are? Does their criticism of you in general mean your point isn’t valid? (I have someone in my life that does this every time). And it’s how people argue in lots of subjects these days.

"Fact-checking is good"

Even this has become an all too trigger happy term for the right. As is evidence by your big "BUT" as it follows...

"fact-check sites are ridiculous at this point"

Not, really? They've been pretty consistent. Their scoring system could use a little work and I believe has been updated a bit. The problem with fact-checking sites, if there is one, is that they try to condense the information down to whether the information is true or false. Sometimes it's much easier to break down outrageously false claims! But when people try to spread misinformation with sprinkling of truth, that's where fact-checkers have to also go back and separate what is true and what has been exaggerated.

"I’d trust the media before I’d trust them"

Except they tend to cite their sources and low and behold, most of their sources are credible news media that you are usually "skeptical" of and ironically trust more than them. Yet... they're just repeating to you a broken down (sometimes even in more non-biased) view of what media has actually reported instead of the garbage that's been corrupted through memes and clickbait.

If anything, memes and clickbait articles are the problem. Not fact-checking sites and Mainstream Media.

That just doesn't meme very well.

Especially on a meme site.

The real reason people don't like fact-checkers because they spoil the fun little fantasy world. It's all a joke! And that would be fine and dandy except there is just one little problem.

There are people who actually believe these memes and clickbait crap.

They tend to vote for yahoos like Majorie Taylor Greene, Josh Barnett, Lauren Boebert,
Mike Cargile, Erin Cruz, Ben Gibson, Alison Hayden, Tracy Lovvorn, KW Miller, Buzz Patterson,
Jo Rae Perkins, Nikka Piterman, Billy Prempeh, Theresa Raborn, Angela Stanton-King, Johnny Teague, Rob Weber, Lauren Witzke, Daniel Wood to name a few...

They give Republicans a bad name.

And this Republican voter will not stand for it.

What about religion?