Sometimes I think the political spectrum is more of an S1 topology.
Science is funded by government, so researchers come to conclusions that support them. I'm not suggesting any conspiracy, just incentives. Researchers just see which proposals get funded, and it happens those are the ones that support the mainstream narrative that the government would like to push.
So it makes sense that if you are against the mainstream narrative, this would also pit you against some mainstream science.
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to lend support to science denialism (I'm somewhat centrist). Just trying to explain why hard liners would tend to engage in it.
I’m not saying that this is an apolitical process. I don’t believe that an apolitical process is possible here, even in theory, and if we imagine a world where an apolitical process were possible, I don’t think such a process would be desirable. I’m also not saying that the process isn’t flawed. I’m just saying that there is not a coherent, unified political force here, and in this environment, there is plenty of room for good research, good science to be done.
I would like to hear if you are basing this opinion on any of your personal experience applying for research grants, or on any informed analysis of how this works, or whether you are just making conjectures about incentives based on the same facts everyone else has.
That's interesting, if you ask me: "are you in a leftist bubble" - I would answer "probably a little." But I've NEVER seen any science denialism, so I guess I'm not?
What kind of denialism are you talking about wrt leftists?