It sounds like you're saying that all science is dishonest. If so, what do you use as a basis for making decisions? If not, how do you decide which science to believe?
When politicians start quoting science to advance their policies and/or increase their power/influence, I get suspicious. When politicians spout science that increases the size of government and limits the choices of citizens, I get suspicious. When lawyer politicians who don't know a beaker from a flask, algebra from calculus, or a hypothesis from a theory, start spouting science, I get suspicious. When politicians act in contradiction to their own scientific edicts to the rest of us, I get suspicious.
If I am interested enough, I go to the source, peer-reviewed information--as much of it as I can find. The weakness or trickery is often in the statistics.
...But keep in mind that scientists deal in the theoretical. I'd wager that most theories are eventually proven wrong because "science" is hard. Once theories are proven, they are usually turned over to engineers to figure out how to use the science.
Indulge me a bit of philosophy:
One thing I know for certain, reality (if it exists) is very different from what we think it is and what we experience. Whatever reality is, it's weirder than we can imagine (for example entanglement). Most people don't know the difference between "hypothesis" (a hunch) and "theory" (a description borne out by a large volume of repeatable experimentation). Still, I guarantee every theory we accept as fact is wrong. Theories reflect our current understanding/observation of how the universe works. Every theory we hold today will eventually be replaced with something radically different.
My point is this, don't ever believe science's theoretical framework actually reflects reality. Remember Gödel's incompleteness theorems? In short, no formal system can prove its own consistency. Our concept of the universe will never be complete, consistent, or particularly accurate. In a hundred or two hundred or three hundred years (if humankind survives as a technological species) they will look back on our concepts of science and the universe the way we look back at the dark ages. (Imagine where we would be scientifically and technologically if we hadn't lost 500 years in the dark ages (early middle ages).
And finally, STOP using the terms "exponential" and "uncountable" unless you are referring to an actual exponential function f(x)=ay^(x) or an actual uncountable set, i.e., an infinite set larger than the set of natural numbers. PLEASE use "growing/rising quickly" and "a lot."
I was conceived 40 years before 1973, and the banning of TEL in car gas. That is a combined 40 years of poisoning by TEL.
Many of us grew up in houses awash in lead paint. Apparently, I'd be an Einstein if latex paint had been invented decades earlier. And I'd be an uber-Einstein if the mercury had been removed from latex paint decades earlier.
