View Single Post
  #64  
Old 08-05-2018, 01:07 PM
Ike Savage's Avatar
Ike Savage Ike Savage is online now
Pinball Porcupine
 

Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,459
Credits: 0.00
Thanks: 1,177
Thanked 707 Times in 554 Posts
Rep Power: 58
Ike Savage is a splendid one to beholdIke Savage is a splendid one to beholdIke Savage is a splendid one to beholdIke Savage is a splendid one to beholdIke Savage is a splendid one to beholdIke Savage is a splendid one to beholdIke Savage is a splendid one to behold
Default

Kinda passing through at the moment, but a quick reply:


> Like you don't believe I can grab "experts" who say the exact opposite.
> It's a silly argument and always falls to the side you are on.

Uh, no... that's why I make sure to mention "body of experts" when I talk about what the best professionals have to say about an issue. Pretty sure that's what I said above, too.

Because in reality, the difference between an "expert" who can spit forth whatever idea you want and the world's body of best experts on said subject is hugely significant. It's like one mouse trying to fight a battle with a pride of lions. In terms of science, reason and rationality, that is.

It's moreso in politics and popular opinion that you get these "conservative" kinds of talking points about there being "two legitimate sides" to a science or expert debate. For example, like the nonsensical idea that there are "two sides to the debate" about global climate change. Just... no. There aren't. In fact, all the world's national academies and every legit body of science I've ever heard of agrees that it's man's activities the past couple hundred years (and accelerating) that are responsible for the world heating up on average, leading to all the kinds of effects we're seeing now.

The idea that there are "two sides to the issue" is in fact a classic propaganda routine, much of which directly goes back to the same spin doctors who worked for Big Tobacco in this case. Essentially it involves large monied interests manufacturing attractive answers for consumption by people unaware of (or not interested in) how reality actually works. For example-- that smoking manufactured tobacco products is perfectly fine for one's health.

Point is, your idea that each of us can just choose the expert that conveniently fits our opinion is rubbish, just as its always been in the era of science. Science at its most most developed, documented and articulated state, that is. IMO it's also something no adult human should be deluding themselves with if they're actually interested in the reality of cause and effect.

In the end it's each person's choice of course. Still, if you have enough people making a poor or unsustainable choice, there will always be consequences.
Reply With Quote