Science vs Pseudoscience

I see this image is doing the rounds, since it was posted on the I f* love science page. Funny thing is I saw this posted on some of the anti-fluoride groups. I could touch on all the points listed.
“Willingness to change with new evidence”
If you have seen some of the debating here, you will find that some of the anti-fluoride guys keep repeating the same incorrect statements. We have debunked those statements. For example “isn’t effective” or “it’s a medicine”. But they will continue to repeat it regardless.
“Ruthless peer review”
Can someone show me this ruthless peer-reviewed papers showing the danger of fluoridation? There are organisations who have looked at 5500 papers and fluoridation shown to be safe. Major reviews show nothing wrong with fluoridation.
“Invites criticism”
Why is it that when we comment on the science on any of the anti-fluoride groups that we get banned? In my case I was banned for replying, to warn someone there is no free speech on the anti-fluoride group. Oh the silliness!
It’s not just banning though, they will delete whole Facebook events, you can read about that story here.

 

Ken Perrott sums it up nicely:

“But you know they have a different perspective. We have fixed ideas because we don’t automatically cave into their arguments and accept their picture of reality. Scientific peer review is flawed because we are shills and bought – only peer review by the ideologically motivated pseudoscience activist is acceptable. We are selective about new discoveries because we don’t accept homeopathy and don’t buy their anti-vaccination stories. Bugger you have me on the criticism one – perhaps our criticism is just rabid lunacy. They verify results by comparing them against their picture and reality and rejecting any results which don’t conform. They certainly claim that fluoride is useless, even harmful. As for accurate measurement – you are just being an arrogant scientist. As well as a shill, in the pay of he man and a rabid lunatic.