Questioning Science is How Science is Done

This is true but most folks engaging in the discussion don't understand how to question science. Hypothesis is the first step. No hypothesis, no science. Conclusion is the last part. If you start with a conclusion then cherry pick articles that support that conclusion, you are not "doing science" - you are doing propaganda.

"I don't believe in {thing}" is not a hypothesis; it is an antithesis. Although hypothesis and antithesis have the same root, the latter is a literary tool while the former is a scientific tool. Propaganda is a literary skill, not a scientific skill. You are doing propaganda, not science.

An example: Saying "I don't believe in climate change" then finding record temperatures in the past or moderate temperatures in the present is an antithesis followed by cherry picking: this is propaganda.

Saying "I believe climate has always changed by not less than 1°C but not more than 3°C per century, barring celestial extinction events" then performing back breaking archaeology and painstaking historical analysis to find evidence of temperature changes over the past 40 million years and reporting the findings would be a hypothesis followed by evidence gathering. This is science.

A thesis is a statement set forth that can be explained and developed through conversation, reading, and argument. An antithesis is the opposite of a particular stated thesis and can be likewise explained and developed. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is something that can be rigorously tested and experimented upon. As a whole, I find that the American political class is able to develop theses but wholly ill-equipped to deal with hypotheses. This is how we get stuck in an endless cycle of back-and-forth election, after election, after election.

I believe it would be up to the conservative class - real conservatives, not neo-con nonsense artists - to correct this national malady. When a liberal says, “all white people are racist,” an unhelpful response would be the antithesis: “not all white people are racist”. This gets us nowhere. A better response (there are a seemingly limitless bounty thereof) would be a hypothesis such as: “There have been anti-racist whites throughout our Nation’s history, and this tradition continues today.” Then it is a small matter to complete the work to test the hypothesis, gather results, and form the proper conclusions. We need to do better, and this is how we do better.

The onslaught of nonsense pouring from the Democrat party is only to be resisted by an equal and opposite onslaught of reason. Devolving into “they state ‘X’ so I state ‘not X’” would help no one. We need to be measured and reasonable in our approach that we may lift the nation from its current place and onto a road toward a more prosperous future.