Talk:Science for ME

Critical Reception -- Dane (talk) 22:38, February 12, 2026 (UTC)

This forum's strength is its intellectual rigor; a high bar of critique set by its corpus of experts. Unfortunately, this is the soirce of its multiple weknesses. It's too bio-centric, bio-reductionist and close minded to be genuinely scientific. Fallibilism is the "F"-word to them. Appeals to authority and tradition predominate. Despite claiming to value "critical, open debate" and equality, core members will attempt to gaslight you if express even a semblance of a different opinion about other complex, chronic illnesses. They also give MDs and established members inordinate amounts of time and attention and allow them much more interpretive leeway with the rules. Their staff and moderators will engage in double standards and conflicts of interest. For instance, they will simultaneously "moderate" debates they participate in! If you don't comply with their pre-conclusions, or waver even a little from their biases towards the hypothetico-deductive model of science, or their reports analysis traditions, they will resort to subtle name calling and other forms defamation innuendo. They give preferential treatment to MDs and others aligned with said narrow minded approach to medical science, nosology and clinical practice, watchdogging and bullying newer members into conformity even when the former are clearly debating within their stated rules and guidelines.