How to be controversial (with a clear conscience)
Some of what I say is controversial.
(meaning it's a counter-narrative to the common narrative that is often - but not always - driven by big business, big government, and socially engineered norms).
I've spent the past few years rallying against Big Pharma. This might be the touchiest of touchy subjects. Especially when it comes to mental illness drugs.
So how do I write controversial stuff with a clear conscience?
Firstly, by being thorough.
I'm very careful about my sources. I always ensure what I share is from either an enormous study, or from a systematic review (when 100s of studies are pooled together).
These are always more accurate and useful than standalone studies.
99% of the studies I get sent from people upset with my stance are standalone studies that aren't worth the paper they're written on.
So, if you're going to be controversial about anything related to science, it pays to learn how science works.
Go learn about systematic reviews. Learn about meta-analysis. Learn why standalone studies are worth less than dirty toilet paper. And then build an argument.
Secondly, I try to write passionately (because I'm energised) but with objectivity.
If I get all emotional about it I'll make a mistake. This is what the 99% of people who don't like what I write do. They get emotional and throw some BS back at me that is inaccurate and hasn't taken the proper scientific method into consideration.
Once I've done these two things, I write. And I publish. And I inevitably upset people.
But at this point I have a clear conscience.
If I've done all of the above to the best of my ability, it's not my problem that people are upset. I had to share it. It's their choice how they respond to it.
I don't demand they change their view.
But I do demand that they learn how to understand the research properly.
But right now I see very few people doing this.