This is a philosophical and political argument. Science is value free, there's no good or bad.
In this statement you are implying that science has no place in philosophy or politics. This is laughably wrong. Politics should be informed by science, and philosophy gave rise to science. Politicians today ignore good science constantly in favor of dogma and this is part of the reason why countries around the world are so fucked. You can't change a person's mind if they're being dogmatic. If they're thinking in a scientific manner, they will be open to new arguments and evidence and change their views based on current evidence instead of trying to defend indefensible situations. You want better politics? Science is necessary.
I really don't get how you're trying to paint me as "anti-science"
I'm not painting anything. If you aren't willing to follow scientific evidence because you don't like it, that makes you anti-science. And to be clear, because I know you'll pop a rage boner and poke your eye out if I don't clarify, I don't mean "you have to believe everything every scientist says all the time", I'm saying that if you're not willing to accept or challenge new theories and instead just reject evidence because it makes you feel bad, you are anti-science.
I don't think that science is a "big bad wolf" and frankly I see this condescending psuedo-intellectual bullshit all over reddit and it makes me fucking sick.
Which is why the moment it was brought up that regulatory bodies like the FDA
I don't think that science is a "big bad wolf" and frankly I see this condescending psuedo-intellectual bullshit all over reddit and it makes me fucking sick. You just call your opinion science and then when someone questions your assertion, perhaps not even any scientific aspect of it, you say conclude that they must be anti-science. This isn't a rational approach to the scientific method. You are not a scientist. You're not even informed. You're just another asshole with an opinion trying to denigrate someone who disagrees with you. So first of all, fuck off.
This little bit is fun. I like this part, because it shows that you have literally no idea what's been happening this entire conversation. You call me a pseudo-intellectual and present exactly no evidence, not even bad evidence. I just am because you're angry. I'm not calling you anti-science because I don't like what you're saying and think my opinions are better. I'm calling you anti-science because you are anti-science, and I think I've done a fairly decent job of proving that above.
The FDA uses the scientific method to determine certain things, but this doesn't mean that they are voice of science and that someone who disagrees with their regulations disagrees with the fundamental laws of reality.
I never claimed that disagreeing with their regulations was wrong. All I stated is that in our society, currently, the FDA acts as a regulatory body which determines whether or not people are allowed to sell certain products. They are not an enforcement agency and do not stop you from consuming anything, as you have claimed. Police stop you from consuming things, the FDA just makes the rules. With greater scientific literacy, we can begin to make changes to the FDA's policies which in turn affects enforcement, but it does not directly enforce anything.
Obviously science is not and should not be about controlling people. But the FDA certainly is.
The FDA does not control anyone. Again, they regulate. Police officers control you.
They have no right to tell me that I can't drink raw milk
Correct. They cannot tell you not to drink raw milk. In the case of drugs, they also do not make a determination as to the punishments for consumption. Congress and individual states do that.
...or that someone else can't sell it to me.
Yes they do. They have that power because we as a society gave it to them. You agree to it by living in this society. If you don't want to have to follow those rules, live elsewhere.