UnpreparedGuesser

From what I have understood of those who think the Earth is flat, all their ideology centers on the unreliability of, not the scientific method itself, but on the veridity of most scientists, since their work (and so their salaries) are based upon results. How would you taclke this lack of trust?

But then how much evidence is enough, or should be enough for the common man? The fact that some people are retarded doesn't mean that we shouldn't have good arguments against their discursive points, even when they are unending and many times illogical, so again; in a play with the book 'Why science works', what would you write in a book called 'Why the current scientific community works' ?(name in progress).

This is what I wanted to tal about. I mean, how far can you go with this mindset? Buildings falling suddenly are very uncommon, but not unheard of, so how can we live, work and visit them without previously investigating the building plans and the reputation of the working crew to see how probable is it to fall? Or, going with something more on point, how and why do scientist utilize the instruments that let them percieve information about whatever they are investigating, when most times they weren't the ones that them? Why do they trust the engineers who made it? It's not like everyone has their own agenda, which sometimes overlaps with common morality.

I've personally never heard of religious claims, though who knows, I don't know any of them. Sometimes science is not about persuading others of the truth, but about you yourself learning about it. As you said, some of their argumebts are of the kind that would make even a reasonable adult say 'yes, that does sound possible'. Well, what I am looking for is to see if there are logical arguments that would dismiss them as truth, regardless of them being possible. What do you think about our reliability on scientist doing a 'good job' to know more? Many studies done, either because media sensationalism or the sponsors's own interests, are pretty biased and wrong.

I'm still worried, since competitive funding just converges towards studies results that agree with the funder's interests (like companies that sells edibles want studies that show their product is good/not bad for repetitive consume); peer review is compensated with neither money nor reputation, while publication generates both. Popular cases of this are when media publicized chocolate being good for X and Y thing, and making people young or whatever; and it was that they were results gathered from studies done with an entirely different purpouse, making the data obtained obsolete to make such claims. Scientists are actually funded based on the individual interests of companies, since most times it's them who have the money. Only in the cases of goverment-funded and morally-correct companies is it that proper scientific research is done, which I honestly hope is the majority of it, though I don't really expect so. Still, I've heard that a change is coming about how things are currently done. Peer review is to be encouraged, which should be a solution to every problem I planted here (except maybe for very expensive and inaccesible experiments?). The goverment should be the first to make a change,but they have a lot to deal with, so it will probably (and very sadly) be quite a while before we see any difference.