Isn’t it demanding that a negative be proved? It is a sophistic argument that one might expect from a lawyer in a courtroom intended to influence thinking through distraction not build a logical case. Real science doesn’t work that way or we’d still be debating flat earth vs round earth.
As a non-scientist, I want to know what it is going to take for physicists and other scientists to resign en masse from these organizations that are obviously stifiling thought.
I am pretty savvy about the left, but it has taken me until now to understand the constant drumbeat for “more government support” of science. DUH. More government support=more government control.
So what are we, the lay public, supposed to do, now? We cannot accept media reports as factual; we cannot accept scientific reports as factual; leaders who disagree with the media and their appointed darling are rejected and constrained from publishing their POV; our children are constrained from creative activity, independent thought and non-conformist action within the schools and universities and thoughtful, public disagreement with orthodoxy can put jobs at risk.
The left in all venues can say, do, promote whatever nonsense they please, while we are supposed to quietly accept whatever they say, do, promlugate or mandate, on pain of economic, social, civil or legal sanction.