> Considering this, we shouldn't be too hostile to anyone who may have a different

I can conclude some things with greater confidence than others. When an expected benefit can be concluded with greater confidence and sufficient magnitude than its expected costs, a decision can - and should - be made.

Sure, I agree that decisions should be made and that the decision process can rightfully incorporate scientific data and consensus. What I'm saying is that if someone refuses to accept our position despite what we consider an abundance of authoritative data, we should sympathize and be kind despite our disagreement, instead of labeling them as ignorant science-deniers. Assuming the person holding the opposing position is well-informed, we should accept that they simply don't recognize the same publications as authoritative, and that there is legitimate room for doubt not only of specific papers but of "scientific consensus" as a whole, especially when that "consensus" is weaponized for political use.

Academia draws people with specific backgrounds and biases. Groupthink is a real and substantial risk, not only because people quite frequently simply copy each others' output, but also because large-scale ostracization is a real risk if one publishes something that goes against the grain. Organizations and institutions pull funding if a finding is too controversial. Studies are often backed by large donors who, whether the pressure is obvious or not, are trying to get a specific result. Graduate students are under a great deal of personal pressure to perform and justify their loans. There are many non-scientific social factors that affect scientific rigor, even in peer-reviewed journals.

Like I said, the convention is that studies that support the speaker's preferred social or political views are usually considered credible, whereas studies that don't are nitpicked and labeled "questionable", for any of a myriad of reasons: the author(s) come from an institution the speaker dislikes, the sample wasn't representative, and so on.

The only common thread is that people won't be swayed in their political or social positions by academic papers -- they'll only use them to justify their pre-existing set of beliefs. This is true for virtually everyone. So I'm suggesting that instead of mistreating someone because we think the "science" bares out our point of view, we recognize that "science" itself is a fallible process susceptible to all kinds of externalities, and that it's often reasonable to mistrust a purported "consensus". Therefore, we should politely accept the difference in opinion instead of getting into a zero-sum rhetorical exercise of "Study X proves my POV" / "Study X was done by clowns! Look at Study Y, which proves my POV", and ends up with both sides detesting each other all the more.

>people won't be swayed in their political or social >positions by academic papers -- they'll only use to justify >their pre-existing set of beliefs. This is true for >virtually everyone.

Speak for yourself. There are plenty of us who are willing to consider our positions falsifiable and actively seek objective answers in good faith.

Your point that academia is fallible is well taken, but this doesn't mean "virtually everyone" is so biased/personally invested as to lack critical thinking skills.

The investment required to truly consider the evidence is so high that none of us can manage that investment for more than a few questions.

We all have to rely on expert opinion in most cases. Even leading experts on one question have to rely on other experts for other questions.

>Your point that academia is fallible is well taken, but this doesn't mean "virtually everyone" is so biased/personally invested as to lack critical thinking skills.

And yet, if history has taught us anything, it's exactly that.