Recently, and as happens every time an US election is held, friendly polishes posts appear that help those with a non-science background understand science better. Sure, that's Science Writing 101, explaining science to lay persons. Oner might presume these sage accounts are penned by the wisest of scientists and their wisdom will help us in our Socratic seartdch for the most golden of truths, scientific certainty. Or is it a kid with a community colege degree in science writing taking written instructions and perforkming wordsmithing wizardry with some nmumbers and s graspoh (supplied) ?

One clue something might be amiss is if the rules that divine truth from fairy tale are themselves logical fallacies, recall no truth can be derived from false premises.

Here's the claim:

"Here are some signs that you might be denying science:

1. Cherry picking data: You only select data that supports your beliefs.
2. Conspiracy theories: You believe in conspiracy theories.
3. Illogical reasoning: You use reasoning that is not based on facts.
4. Fake experts: You rely on fake experts or denigrate real experts.
5. Unrealistic expectations: You think that science must be perfect to be credible.
6. Unconscious bias: You have an unconscious bias to reach a preferred conclusion.
7. Emotions: You let your emotions influence your decisions about science.
8. Social groups: You identify with social groups that have anti-science attitudes.
9. Double standard of evidence: You don't apply the same standards of evidence to science as you do to other things."
   
   
   The first thing that seems amiss is the writring style, you're not questioning things, ie, "are the fact well supported" ijnstead you're being told how to lie: "You only select data that supports your beliefs". The tone here is not to help you discern, it's to explain how you get away with lying in the face of actual sdcience. Picture this list posted to a wall in a cubicle, and the list above may appeal to our common sense. But it is really what Scorates would have said? Well, we can't know of course but we do have hundfreds if not thousands of years to refine the socratic method and as all amateur and professional logisticians fall back on a few axiomatic principles to help us easily and quickly derive truth, or rather weed out untruths, the rhetoric of media, to lay bare those loigicsl trutyhs can can be derived. So the instructions that arer supposed to help you discern scientiric truth, as posted sabnive, woujld be better suited asd a training manual for political misinfgotmastion and propoganmda. There are rather a large numbers of lorgical fallacies, let's see how manyu rules of logic that have eben browejm we can find, if it's none, these rules are probabky sound. If we find one, well, that's not helpful to anybody escept a profession al liar.