Doesn’t matter. The fact CNN thinks she has anything relevant to say on the subject or is any way qualified to discuss the issue while out of the other side of their mouth telling another Dr. they aren’t qualified to dare question the narrative of another Dr., shows just how much they are going down the rabbit hole.
1 Like
Absolutely. No need to listen to those pesky “constitutional experts” like Scalia or Levin. Or to any Bible scholars. Or to any free market “experts”.
Stupid cliches for $1000, Alex.
JayJay
109
Who told Rand Paul he couldn’t speak?
Liberals, progressives and Democrats politicize everything including science. They corner the market on fake news and junk science.
1 Like
You know that appealing to authority is NOT a logical fallacy, right? It is entirely appropriate when discussing a topic that we are not authorities in ourselves, which is pretty much most topics.
Yes, experts can be wrong even in their area of expertise but it is a lot less often then non-experts outside their area of expertise. I’ll stick with the authorities until given a good reason to believe otherwise because I have a much higher chance of being right than if I go against the authority.
I think we can all acknowledge that we have limited time and limited interests so why wouldn’t they rely on an expert? (Assuming you are on here)
And on far more complicated topics involving deep scientific knowledge, why wouldn’t you rely on experts? You don’t have the time to go through the data and studies. When you get prescribed a new medicine, I sincerely doubt you go through the multiple studies from that drug to create your own opinion on its efficacy. You trust the experts.
Getting filled with hate after seeing, hearing or reading something you can’t stand.
WuWei
114
No it isn’t. It’s not collected nor analyzed that way.
Is reading comprehension hard for you? I was speaking about a very specific portion of the data. Everyone wants to over complicate this nonsense but when we had 4,000 PPM of CO2 and the temperature was the same as it is today, the data is clear and easy to read. CO2 does NOT cause warming. If it did, the temperature would have been many times what it is today. The original hockey stick graph is further proof that their correlation fails. This isn’t rocket surgery, it’s quite simple. When you make a definitive statement that CO2 causes warming, therefore man is causing warming and the warming trend pauses for 20 years (as it has done in the past), it’s very clear that their theory is wrong. Nothing I said is incorrect.
Incorrect. Appealing to authority is a lazy way to have a debate. If you’re correct, you need to explain it. The whole “Because I said so” died when I turned 18 and moved out and became an adult. (Ok, it died when I left the Army at 24). When someone says they’re the expert, so take it on faith, I know immediately that they’re full of crap. I listen to guys like Thomas Sowell that shares WHY he believes what he believes. The guys like Patrick Moore that explain it. I don’t tend to just accept it on “I’m the expert”, I’m a rational human being. Explain it to me.
No, we don’t agree that we have limited time if you’re talking about this being a crisis. I think it’s a bunch of nonsense and I’m not going to just give in because some scientist said we have to act now. If we did, we would have worked to address global cooling and a slew of other emergencies over the past 100 years.
Lastly, yes, even doctors I question. Here’s a GREAT example. My mother was told in December that she had stage 4 small cell carcinoma of the liver, primary was unknown. They went through and did a PET scan and it showed nothing. They got the assessment from a biopsy. I dug and it didn’t make sense because those two cannot exist at the same time. I questioned them and I was told… “We need to go ahead and act now and start chemo to control the cancer in the liver if she’s going to have any hope. Beyond that, we need to talk about end of life decisions” At that point, the “Listen to us because we’re the experts” went out the window. I brought her to Houston for a second opinion. The oncologist here took a look at the results and said they didn’t make sense to her. She did a second biopsy, they did a specialized PET scan and guess what. No stage 4 cancer. She had a Carcinoid on the liver. She’s being treated with shots to prevent spreading now instead of going through chemo at the age of 79. Last weekend, I drove her back to Nebraska in an RV and she’s back home, healthy and doing well.
2 Likes
Flat out folks, we should listen to the experts but if they cannot explain why they’re correct, we should be very suspicious. I’ve dealt with engineers over the years and “We can’t do that” has often turned out to be “I don’t know how”. A few months ago, I had an electrical engineer tell us we needed a transformer subsea because we couldn’t send 24 VDC down the umbilical. I challenged him and suggested we could, that we needed to have another look because we wanted to minimize the footprint subsea so we didn’t have to add another junction can. He got snippy and said “Look, I can tell you as the electrical engineering manager that you CANNOT send 24 VDC down the umbilical, the cable would be this big (holds up his hands in about a 4” circle)"… So I politely interjected, what if we send about 60 VDC down and allow for voltage drop? Can we get enough amperage subsea @ 24 VDC with the allowable drop? . . . one of the other electrical engineers said “Yeah, that would work.”… I’m sorry, I just have a habit of not trusting someone that’s an expert because they say so. Explain to me why not and then I can accept that but you better have a rational reason, especially when I’ve done it! I just have seen in my life that the appeal to authority tactic is a way to silence debate. I’m happy to listen to the experts if they have a rational explanation.
2 Likes
Not a scientist, and yet the left thinks she’s an authority on global warming and now COVID 19.
The altar of the Cult of Personality.
1 Like
No. I’m filled with irritation after reading something that makes no sense.
Similar examples:
- “Reason can’t supplant faith in God.”. Another tiresome cliché from superficial Christians that is contrary to the teachings of respected Christian theologians and priests over the past 2000 years. Saint Aquinas would tell you that the existence of God can be confirmed through reason.
- “Economics is a religion.”, uttered by folks who can’t use their noggins to distinguish between economics proper and value judgements that are passed off as economics.
- “Philosophy has been replaced by science.”, proclaimed by people who think that none of their own views are philosophical in nature whilst unknowingly sharing their own positions on certain philosophical issues.
What you said is conceptually incoherent.
Now, there are lots of claims that have been made out to belong in the domain of science while not actually belonging in the domain of science. These are examples of scientism, something that is quite different from science.
Sorry, that is not the correct answer.
The correct answer is, “What is being triggered?”
Rand Paul is an opthamologist.
Over Samson’s Head for $0.02, Alex. 
1 Like
JayJay
127
The data is objective.
It is collected that way.
