1: Much of what is said here is reasonable. Science most certainly isn't right all the time and it is true that it's always trying to poke holes in existing theories in an attempt to replace it with a better theory. However, to say that science is used regularly to end debate is ridiculous. In fact, given the context, it's self-refuting. That is, the author states this and then immediately follows it up with how science questions itself all the time. In my opinion, this whole opening statement is a bit nonsensical in regards to trying to vilify how science is used in debate.

It's also important to note that while science is always open to question, this doesn't mean that you have the skill set to be able to do this. To become a scientist takes years of intense study, not simply the ability to google or watch YouTube videos. Within the scientific field, most scientists hold a PhD as this is the level of education that it takes to become a expert responsibly within a given domain. Please don't confuse your ability to understand basic scientific concepts with that of an individual who is an expert in a scientific discipline.

2: Again, as the Author stated in the first post, science questions itself regularly. Scientists question the data, the results, etc. all the time. This is precisely how science is supposed to work and does work. This built-in inquiry and criticism mechanism is one of the primary reasons why science is so successful. Nothing is simply accepted by the community until adequate evidence has been presented and the entire community has had a chance to thoroughly analyze the results for replicability and authenticity.

I agree that science has become politicized, but this doesn't mean that suddenly we shouldn't trust the studies being conducted or the conclusions reached. Further, it's incredibly important to acknowledge that the actual scientific community and the science being done hasn't been corrupted by people politicizing science. Politicians and other political talking heads are taking results and distorting them to fit a narrative. This is why it's more important than ever to listen directly to the scientific community these days. Particularly when it comes to safely navigating this pandemic.

3: Galileo was also a brilliant scientist conducting experiments that pushed the boundaries of human knowledge and challenged some of the beliefs of the Church. He wasn't a blacksmith, farmer, etc. who through intuition decided to challenge the church with new “theories”. He spent years of intense study understanding science, conducting rigorous experiments, and then arrived at correct results that challenged the church. This is clearly not the same as someone being ridiculed for challenging science when they lack the prerequisite training to be able to do so. Within skeptic circles, this is known as the “Galileo Gambit.”

This type of argument is guilty of creating a false equivalence. The fact that two people have something in common doesn't mean that they have something else in common or even everything in common. While it is true that authorities thought that Galileo was wrong and they also think that you are, but the fact that he turned out to right doesn't mean that the same will happen for you. Carl Sagan puts it best:

“The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

4: As I stated before, science isn't perfect and it's certainly filled with some bad actors as all areas of society are. Unfortunately, every professional sector of society will always have some low integrity individuals who are willing to take shortcuts to get ahead. However, this doesn't suddenly mean that all of science is bad. Would you suddenly stop taking your car to a mechanic, going to the Doctor, allowing your child to go to school, etc. because there are frauds and con-artists within those professions? No? Then why would you stop trusting in science?

Like all other professions, there are strict guidelines on who gets to conduct science and how new knowledge is generated. Scientists undergo years of intense training to ensure that they follow rigorous experimental guidelines, which gives the generated results the best chances of being accurate. Moreover, even after a study has been conducted, it must pass the peer-review process before it's published. After publication, the results are still scrutinized as the full community is now able to review the experiment and replicate. Again, this process isn't perfect and bad or fraudulent studies do get published sometimes, but it is very rare and always rectified by the community.

5: I'm not sure why the Author would add in this paragraph about him/her not encouraging people to trust science. IMO, this is precisely what he/she has been pontificating about leading up to this point. While not explicitly saying it, everything said up to this point implies it, which renders what's said in the first paragraph here specious.

Please, question away. All science starts with intriguing observations and the formation of questions surrounding it. As said ad nauseum at this point, science doesn't discourage individuals from questioning, but it is important that you are aware of your own limitations when it comes to evaluating scientific studies due to their highly technical nature. What is more, if you are fortunate enough to come across a scientist who takes the time to explain why your questions have already been thought of and addressed, that you're presenting speculation as evidence, that you're confusing correlation with causation, that there isn't some massive conspiracy between world scientists and governments to poison people, etc. please listen to them.