to believe that there is a "Philosophical question regarding the origin of the Universe." Is, in itself, a religion.
Except that science is derived from philosophy. So you are then saying that science is a religion. Nice!
"The question regarding the origin of the Universe is just one question where bias takes charge and science is put in the background." False. there is a lot of sciecne regarding the origin of the universe.
I think we have evidence going back to the big bang, but I have never heard of any data that comes from before the big bang. So how could we have scientific evidence of what caused the big bang. It sounds like you are falling for the very thing the article says people mistake.The holy scientist says so, so it must be!
"Vaccines" The science is well know. The vast majority of public debate isn't about anything debatable. It's one side making things up and the other using science. i.e. expermint, data, ect.
The anti-vaccine issue is extra complicated because of the crazy anti-vaxxers that make everyone who has issues with government mandates get lumped in with them. I have issue with the number of vaccines they want to give. Many of them are for stupid things that cause no harm. Why should you give risk to young children for something that is as bad as getting a cold? Why should a 1 day old be getting vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases? Why should vaccines that cause cervical cancer be mandated to young children? Well, because we said so is not a good enough answer. If a child got whooping cough then they have a much better immunity to pertussis than any vaccine can give. Does that matter to the law? Can you even get the other two vaccines without them being in the trio form? No and no. And their example of flu vaccines is especially apparent as a stupid example. Flu vaccines have to made by guessing what will be around next season. There is no testing. In fact, it is illegal to test using scientific principles, if the flu vaccine is effective because it is assumed to work effectively. You cannot deny someone the effective treatment, so being that they assume it works you cannot actually test it to see if it does. But when the season comes around where the flu vaccine is wrong and turns out to not be effective the rates of flu in the country don't change appreciably. So there is some evidence that we are being lied to about vaccines also. But it isn't the scientist, it's the politician and their desire to control everyone that makes the unintelligent laws. There are also the cases where the company has been lying about the effectiveness of their vaccine for the last 50 years. So we are all getting shots that don't do much other than have potential side effects. But the pro-vaxxers will say that we should all undergo every shot that they or any governmental agent says we should get. Very scientific there.
"GMO foods" ON one side we ahve science, and verification from every major scientific health group in the world, that it is safe. On the other side you got FUD.
Or you have one side doing the experiments and hiding the results. Then they make it illegal, by copyright law, to allow anyone else to do their own experiments. Sounds like science to me, NOT! The fact that the chemicals are seen in utero, when the companies making them said that it would not survive the stomach is one lie right there. The higher rate of animal miscarriages when using GMO feed that farmers report is highly worrisome also. But we should not be able to test this ourselves to find out if it actually is caused by GMO or something else is ok. Plus, we should not even be given information as to which foods at the market are GMO and which ones are not. Seems fishy to me.
" Global Warming" ON side has science, prediction, proof, the other side has people screaming nonsense.
Similar to the GMO. One side has the companies that want to profit and will cover up any negative findings and spew FUD to confuse the issue. Now the political side is another matter. What to do about global warming is not a scientific issue.
Just look at how long we have believed that fat is bad for your heart and your cholesterol levels. All because some "scientist" fudged his numbers to make things work out. Why did everyone just believe this lying bastard? Why did no one else repeat the study to see if it made any sense at all? I guess it fit what everyone thought made sense and perhaps like the article says, people just followed what the holy scientist decrees.