Well, there it is. Science.
2 Likes
Actually I think he has a point with selective science.
And nobody will remember your name.
Indeed it is.
I feeeel it.
Gut instincts are based on solid factual Science.
I’ve lost track of the conversation. Ashamed of what? Did you do something offensive? On second thought, don’t even tell me what it was.
1 Like
We ( @SixFoot ) have wrecked your thread.
I agree with your premise absolutely, in fact I’ve said it myself several times.
Expertise is to be respected; as long as it’s honest.
I really like what Fauci said when asked about Paul’s comments. I liked what Paul said as well. They were both right.
It’s a context problem.
Scientists don’t have a “solution” to this problem and the problem is bigger than the dusease; much bigger.
“We” placed our faith in men with test tubes and women with degrees on tv. They can’t fix it and they can’t admit it.
Because of High Modernism turned authoritarian.
2 Likes
2 Likes
So Oreskes’ lecture is manipulative rhetoric, and this isn’t? It isn’t supposed to satisfy the urge to believe we’re just as smart as the Poindexters? Smarter, even, because we’re not burdened by years of tunnel vision and professional insularity.
Orthopedic surgeons and auto mechanics may be wrong as often as most people. But they’re not usually wrong about how to repair a torn ACL or rebuild a transmission. Dr. Fauci should not be the sole arbiter of when to “reopen the country” because his focus is the medical science of this pandemic, not calculating all of the social, economic, and (sigh) political factors involved in those decisions. He explicitly acknowledged that. But you don’t believe that we should trust his and other epidemiological experts’ opinions about the likely public health consequences of those decisions? I do. Polls indicate most Americans do. More than they trust the scientific expertise of someone who would stare at an eclipse.
9 Likes
I always view things with skepticism. My theory they’re multiple ways of solving problems, but once you taken one solution/path it leads to other different problems.
All to often we take the hard way. Maybe it’s just human nature.
Not “smarter”, more common sensical.
The problem with experts is they never consider execution. That’s somebody else’s problem.
Are those other factors you mentioned not also “public health”?
His focus is simply how many people may live or die based on our response to this pandemic. That’s his job.
His job is “public health”, not “COVID Manager”.
Actually I disagree…guessing or estimating isn’t science. You’re just rolling the dice IMO.
He’s the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, not the Secretary of HHS. I think he’s doing a great job of staying in his lane. Unlike some.
When a scientist does it, they are variables and assumptions.
You said “public health”, not me.
I agree with you, it’s not his fault the zealots weigh his context so heavily.
Unlike whom?
