All of this may be true, but it leads to the question: if not science, what do you recommend instead?
Not being a virologist or epidemiologist, I have to listen to somebody. Are you saying I'd actually be better off listening to Art Bell and Joe Rogan than official sources like Fauci? If so, that's an extraordinary claim if there ever was one.
Accept that there is no source of info you can just believe at face value.
You need to collect information from across your infosphere and intensively de-bias and cross-check it.
It'll take a lot of effort. If that's not worth it to you, go agnostic on things you don't have time to figure out, or join a tribe and shout the slogans with your tribe-friends. Your life choices will depend on your values.
This has been my method for quite some time. It is very time consuming. I rarely reach conclusions, but I get close enough to feel confident in my choices.
Agree 100%. And the same is true for a lot of other things, they're just not as contentious.
Every time I get on a plane I have to trust the science and engineering behind it, I have zero clue why it works but I can't become an expert in aerodynamics just to go on holiday. When I drink milk I have to trust the science behind pasteurization, I trust the physics calculations when going up a high rise and the same for when I take medicine.
I have to trust someone for 95% of my day to day actions, and while a system like "science" is flawed it's the best we've got so far. All up for improvements, but let's not throw the baby with the bathwater.
Not being a virologist or epidemiologist, I have to listen to somebody. Are you saying I'd actually be better off listening to Art Bell and Joe Rogan than official sources like Fauci? If so, that's an extraordinary claim if there ever was one.