The fact that capitalism taints everything it touches is not a criticism of the things it touches.

True but people also use this as an excuse to dismiss any research they disagree with which is idiotic.

Most research is legit. It just might not be interpreted correctly, or it might not be the whole picture. But it shouldn’t be ignored because you don’t like it.

People are especially prone to this with Econ research in my experience.

This is a clean example of an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

Statement B attempts to use Statement A to make an unrelated point that isn't necessarily untrue, but it is still unrelated.

This could be done with any combination of...

"Under capitalism, is..."
"Under , science is..."

They would all result in a statement that supports Speaker B, but is no longer relevant to what Speaker A stated, as the topic has changed. In this case, from science to capitalism.

I.e. It's an anti-capitalism meme attempting to use science to appeal to a broader audience through relevance fallacy. Both statements may be true, but do not belong in the same picture.

Unless, of course, "that's the joke" and I'm just that dumb.

Edit: I'm not a supporter of capitalism. But I am a supporter of science—haha, like it needs me to exist—and this is an interesting example of social science. It seems personal opinion is paramount to some individuals rather than unbiased assessment of the statement as a whole. Call me boring and autistic, but that's what science be and anything else isn't science, it's just personal opinion, belief, theory, etc.

This is why the last step of science is broad consensus, which has solved literally every single example of bad science in this entire thread. All this means is people should pay more attention to sources.

Let's also not forget that Scientists are also humans. Humans with their own beliefs and biases which do get transferred into studies. Peer review can help reduce that but since peers are also humans with their own biases, but also common biases shared amongst humans it's not bulletproof either.

There will always be some level of bias which clouds judgement, or makes you see/think things that aren't objectively true, sometimes it comes with good intention, others not so much. It's always there though, and probably always will be. The key to good science is making it as minimal as possible.

Why not both?

What's decided to be worthy of study is subjective. The process to hypothesize, experiment, and conclude what's being studied is objective.

Science doesn't change just because some groups try to use it to forward an agenda.

This statement is ~~on the verge of being~~ a strawman argument. The first compares science to other systems of knowledge, while the second criticizes the subjects of scientific study under a capitalist influence.

These two statements do not refer to the same thing in context.

Edit: clarity

Also corporations tie employment of scientists to the number of papers they publish, as well as burying data that is financially harmful.

haha fUnNy mEme - gUeSs We cAn JuSt aBaNdOn SCiEnCe!

It doesn't matters what it is, if you use a strawman I will automatically disagree.

If you catch your friends using Science as a religion, tell them they're not a skeptic, they're a cunt.

Science is the process of getting things a little less wrong.

Science is a method of empiricism and inductive logic.

Source (of drawing)?