Ok.

I'll explain because there seems to be a genuine misunderstanding.

Of course the scientific method is great, and the only tool we have to understand the world. Of course. Very true.

"The Science", on the other hand, is a sales tool. Something to be invoked to push a product, a policy, whatever.

Science, the scientific method, the sum total of humanity's knowledge and wisdom, can't be stopped. It may be delayed, but truth wins because truth predicts the future, and lies don't.

But "The Science", that's different. Pay off a few key people at the right time, and you can get yourself a nice handy "The Science" to sell whatever it is you want to sell. It won't work forever, but it doesn't need to. By then they've already cashed out their shares, won the election, whatever.

"But "The Science", that's different. Pay off a few key people at the right time, and you can get yourself a nice handy"

If it's accurate how is this is a bad way to sell something? What's better? You're claiming that it can be corrupted, that applies to many things in life.

Why is lying and censoring dissenting views a bad way to sell something? Because it destroys all trust we have in that institution, and now every time they try to push something again we have to wonder "What lies and censorship are they doing this time?"

Who is they? Why are you grouping all scientists as one?

Lying and censoring isn't a good way to sell something but that's has nothing to do with science nor can you place blame or reduce your trust across all scientists and scientific institutions.

It a reporter at NBC lies and gets caught why would that affect the reputation of a reporter at another news network? It shouldn't and if it does then explain why?

"Because it destroys all trust we have in that institution"

What institution? If a specific company, government agency, or educational institution is caught lying or censoring and the management knew about it, approved it, or didn't take reasonable steps to stop it then you should reduce your trust level for them.

BUT I don't see any specific one being mentioned. I see "science" and "The Science".

> […] but that's has nothing to do with science nor can you place blame or reduce your trust across all scientists and scientific institutions.

It has everything to do with science when you have actual scientists directing and encouraging the practice.

I get that they are in the employ of the government, and one could perhaps argue they are more politician than scientist at that point. But they were trolleyed out and identified themselves as such, and appeared in every other way as if true scientists.

As for the blame part, that’s a judgement for individuals to make. Personally, it shook me to the core, and I do blame those scientists at least as much as I blame the politicians. I now look very much more closely at recommendations from public health and other government institutions, and take far less on trust.

> nor can you place blame or reduce your trust across all scientists and scientific institutions.

And yet I did, and so did millions more. Now what? You think we're irrational? Ok, that doesn't fix it.

That is what "destroying trust" means.

Besides, that's not even accurate. Of course every time I get lied to by a scientist I should update a bit more towards believing scientists less. That's not only common sense, it's Bayesian rationality by the book.