Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

This is not a fact, it's a claim (may even by a hyperbole, we don't know for sure). But even at that, you're overlooking a very important perspective: there are more important and less important discoveries (results) and thus the effect of them being wrong should also be weighted. I'd also be inclined to think that the more important ones are scrutinized more and thus are likely to be right more often.

The great and unique thing with science, not ignoring the issues you've raised, is that it can correct itself. And it's better at it than everyday people are. So yep, the issues mentioned by you and others should be corrected (and some of these, like the replication issues and the publication bias, etc. are well known which means that I'm sure they are being worked on). But the general public also has to learn that science is still our best chance to understand reality.

Because most science (and thus reality) deniers usually just look at it as if it was a simple choice between "do I believe them or not" as in "do I let myself be lied to/mislead or not". Whereas the real choice is who do I rather believe? The science guy or myself (without knowing much about anything, basically). Which will give me the better results? Because when I have to make a decision (e.g. vaccinate or not) then it will be a decision between these too. (Just like "vaccinate or not" is really a decision of "contract the virus with or without being pre-immunized by the vaccine". And not "do I want to risk the side effects or not".)

Sorry I know this sounds a little woo-woo fruity, but that’s Humanity’s godlike power to transcend the limitations of our bodies’ material dimension where energy can’t be created or destroyed.

Collectively we’re like a blockchain holding a mirror-image dimension of all the best ideas just by virtue of the other nodes not making it, growing over time as our new embodiments get to start at what from their point of view is “zero” despite being unknowably old and full of patches and bug fixes. Storage and retrieval are the same operation!

> For decades, corporate undermining of scientific consensus has eroded the scientific process worldwide. Guardrails for protecting science-informed processes, from peer review to regulatory decision making, have suffered sustained attacks, damaging public trust in the scientific enterprise and its aim to serve the public good. Government efforts to address corporate attacks have been inadequate. Researchers have cataloged corporate malfeasance that harms people’s health across diverse industries. Well-known cases, like the tobacco industry’s efforts to downplay the dangers of smoking, are representative of transnational industries, rather than unique. This contribution schematizes industry tactics to distort, delay, or distract the public from instituting measures that improve health—tactics that comprise the “disinformation playbook.” Using a United States policy lens, we outline steps the scientific community should take to shield science from corporate interference, through individual actions (by scientists, peer reviewers, and editors) and collective initiatives (by research institutions, grant organizations, professional associations, and regulatory agencies).

UCS Case studies: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/disinformation-playbook

OP never mentioned evidence. People just "knew" this person was a fraud but there was no mention of the actual evidence of fraud. The closest thing to evidence is that "their work was terrible" but that isn't evidence of fraud.

>I think 'less risk' goes part and parcel with being administration rather than someone lower rank reporting a problem.

We have no idea the risks involved. It would be highly embarrassing for a prestigious school and/or instructor to admit that they admitted a fraud into their program. Maybe this isn't even the first time this has happened to these people. Would you want to be the person know for repeatedly being duped by frauds? Maybe that would that ruin your reputation more than looking the other way and letting this person fail somewhere else where you would not be directly tied to their downfall. It is also incredibly risky to punish this person without hard evidence as that can lead to a lawsuit.

These are not meant to be definitive statements. They are just hypothetical that show how we can't judge people's motivations without knowing a lot more about the situation.