These worshippers of so-called “science” are just a rehash of old timey humanists, and their arrogance will be our undoing unless we firmly denounce them as cultists, vile dogmatists whose trust is misplaced. Science and technology are tools for mankind to learn about their world and make it better, not to be worshipped like some 21st Century golden calf. There are few things worse than seeing belief used for a political agenda, and that’s why Americans must return to God and the Church or face the consequences of their continued arrogance.
Science created COVID-19 in a Chinese lab; what makes some fools think the high priests in their white lab coats can save us? Silly libs.
I’ll readily admit 1. It was underestimated, which I addressed in one of the other threads and 2. The ramping up was slow, which is to be expected in a bureaucracy of this magnitude.
I didn’t take issue with that part of our statement.
I specifically took issue with this part of your statement:
We all have the ability to look at data and come to a conclusion and we all have just as much chance of being right as some guy with a degree.
And this is a fallacy. While we all have the “ability” to look at the data and come to a conclusion, we, in fact, DO NOT all have “just as much of a chance of being right as some guy with a degree”.
One has to know how to properly evaluate and analyze data, and also have at least a reasonable understanding of the subject matter being described by the data.
Too many people who claim “I studied the data and it says this” in fact do not have such qualifications.
And it’s not limited to guys without degrees.
The housing/credit crisis of the 2000s? One of the root causes of it were those quants (who obviously have degrees and data analytics skills) who developed the Gaussian Copula models that supposedly accurately quantified CDO/MBS risks.
What these quants DIDN’T have was the necessary subject matter expertise to understand the danger of building models based on data sets that contained data collected during the time period when housing prices were never declining, only going up (not the quants’ collective fault they used this biased data…it was the only data available to them TO use).
The rest is history.
Except it’s not history because the danger of biased data sets is continuing to haunt us.
But so is the danger of unqualified people (degreed or not) thinking they have equal ability to qualified people (degreed or not).
It’s still not a fallacy. Since they have been consistently wrong, I’d say a dart at a board has as much chance of being correct as these current “experts”. Maybe not “All” but in general, as I said, the degree isn’t a magic decoder ring. A degree gives you no special ability to come to a conclusion based on looking at the data.
What I despise is people that want to completely dismiss conclusions because someone doesn’t have the appropriate degree or the conclusion isn’t “peer reviewed” by other people with that magic degree. That’s called appealing to authority and I reject it. I guess I’m just sick of people talking about the “experts” and decade after decade, they end up being incorrect. People listen to the experts so they don’t have to think for themselves and that goes for everything. I have perfectly intelligent people that call me and ask what computer they should buy. It’s not because they’re stupid, it’s because they’re lazy and want me to make their decision for them.
Do I know what causes global warming? Nope. Probably the sun. Do I know what DOESN’T cause global warming based on the evidence? Absolutely. CO2 is NOT the cause of warming if you believe the data that’s publicly available. Why? While CO2 levels can rise and fall short term based on temperatures, it’s not clearly a leading indicator of warming. At time it lags warming, at time it precedes warming. Further than that, there are times that we’ve had 20X the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and lower temperatures than today so we can completely dismiss the idea that CO2 always causes warming. The data is easy to interpret and it’s clear. Why do they keep pushing it? Can’t tax the sun, can we? Can’t tax solar winds. Can’t tax water vapor. Can’t tax cloud cover. Can’t tax volcanoes. . . isn’t it just a LITTLE obvious that the ONLY thing they want to point to is the ONLY thing they can tax?
Our temperature has never been stable so expecting there to be no change and blaming us if there IS change is not logical and I don’t give a good *** **** what kind of degree these folks have.
I’m just sick of the “qualified people” or “people with degree X” statements because they’re so consistently wrong that it’s not clear to me that the degree adds much value.
I agree. I think I’m going to head to my medicine cabinet right now and throw out all my blood pressure medicine and diabetes medication. Who trusts these scientists? For that matter, why have I still got insulin in my refrigerator that was made in a lab. If you can’t trust your own body’s insulin, you don’t need some new fangled insulin made by a scientist, amirite?
Sorry but that’s crap. Some fool who studied and worked in, say, immunology for decades doesn’t have a monopoly on the truth when you factor in that good old fashioned common sense trumps so-called “learning and experience” every time.
If scientific experts know so much why do they constantly change their positions? It’s like they make things up as they go, change their position when it turns out they were wrong, and claim it’s because “new evidence led us away from old theories.” Hogwash, what a dodge.
The assumption you made that “the data is clear and easy to interpret” is the primary reason this post was a complete fail.
And is a primary example of what I was talking about.
The experts in these complex fields aren’t as “wrong” as you think they are…it depends on what target you were thinking they should be able to hit in order to be “right”.
This is why context matters. This is why some understanding of the subject matter…matters.
And why to truly find out where the experts “failed” you must properly understand how to even begin critiquing them.
And that’s very hard work…it is the farthest thing possible from being “clear and easy to interpret”.
Don’t worry, CNN will make sure Greta tells you all how things should be.
DR. Rand Paul is not qualified to question Dr. Fauci’s advice but by golly Greta is qualified to sit a panel on covid-19 while libs scream to the scientists.
