> And most importantly, are you doing your questioning in good faith?
Worrying about "good faith" is a pointless waste of time. You don't know, and can't know with certainty, whether a question is in good faith. Your assessment of good faith is based on feelings and those don't have a scientific basis. If you reject or criticize a question on the basis of an actor's "good faith", then that actually makes you the one who is unscientific.
But the great thing about this is that this doesn't even matter. Bullshit questions will be easily refutable. And if they're not, it's because those doing the science haven't done a thorough enough job yet.
"[Tobacco smoking] has been a major health problem for many decades. For the entire 20th century it is estimated that around 100 million people died prematurely because of smoking, most of them in rich countries." (https://ourworldindata.org/smoking)
Worrying about "good faith" is a pointless waste of time. You don't know, and can't know with certainty, whether a question is in good faith. Your assessment of good faith is based on feelings and those don't have a scientific basis. If you reject or criticize a question on the basis of an actor's "good faith", then that actually makes you the one who is unscientific.
But the great thing about this is that this doesn't even matter. Bullshit questions will be easily refutable. And if they're not, it's because those doing the science haven't done a thorough enough job yet.