@wjmaggos @DotardTed @Quentin I hope so, but this is one area I'm not too optimistic on. There's at least two generations who believe all their political enemies always argue in bad faith. Intellectual integrity barely exists as well, particularly when uncomfortable ideas are so easily no-platormed which artificially narrows the window of discourse. Then we have the replication crisis and its follies — how many billions of dollars were spent on b-amyloid plaque research only to realize the original source was fabricated data? We have to be honest with ourselves in the way we approach research — do we ACTUALLY value truth, or is consensus more important? Should "scientific consensus" be an arbiter given that truth is indifferent to our collective agreements? Do we care about the source of funding and the exclusion of data to manipulate results, and do we actually care about negative results of hypothesis the way science suggests we should?