🇳🇱
LLLAAAWWWLLLL
Scientist = "expert on a topic who has spent a life time studying it and understands it inside and out"....
Yea I can see why you would think scientists are the fraudsters... an expert on a topic makes it really hard to just make up random bullshit and have people buy it.
@freemo @commandlinekid @realcaseyrollins @icedquinn
Really? Cuz the pretty obvious lesson of this decade is that being a scientist in a lab coat is the easiest way to get millions of people to buy your random made up bullshit.
Thats not entierly untrue, when you are proven expert on a topic and know far more about it than your average citizen then people are more likely to trust you. There are certainly cases where scientists have taken advantage of that trust. No one would claim a scientist is infallable.
The only difference is that there are far more non-scientists making absurd claims and just as willing to violate peoples trust, but because their idiots and not experts they just arent very successful.
In the end thats why you dont just evaluate a scientists expertise, but their track record as well. No one should suggest that you need to blindly accept anything any scientist tells you, but even less so should you trust some backwater hick trying to sell you nonsense either.
@freemo @icedquinn @realcaseyrollins @commandlinekid
And on at least a few subjects you need to do the research yourself to be able to know the answers so that you can validate your sources against reality. Unfortunately few people can overcome Gell-Mann amnesia.
The nature of science is to constantly attempt to disprove the status quo to better understand/approximate reality. Of the 99 hair brained ideas, 1 turns out to be right and the continents are actually drifting, Unfortunately that is the exact opposite of how primate politics work and so humans have a fundamental problem advancing sciences faster than generationally. The current pseudo religion of turning the pronouncements of scientists into papal edicts just makes the problem worse.
> "You need to do the research yourself"
Yes this is true.. **if** you are an expert who has years and years of study intimately on the subject so you are at all **capable** of doing the research.
Sadly most people who have "done their own research" dont just lack expertise, they dont even seem to understand the language of the studies or what any of them are even saying.
So yea by all means become and expert on the subject, do your own research, and use that expertise to reject or accept it... But if what you mean is read what some other idiots who know as little as you do think about a subject and then come to your own conclusions.. well yea... no, thats just idiocy perpetuating idiocy. It is also the more common of the two approaches.
No one said anything about education or credentials... You always seem to hear things that were never said in these conversations.
Nope, you just continually hallucinate that I am talking about credentials everytime I mention "expertise" instead.. I correct you every time, but your not too bright on the up-take.
@freemo @crunklord420 @icedquinn @realcaseyrollins @commandlinekid
A belief that those who know nothing about an issue should put preference into the opinions of credentialed individuals over the uncredentialled seems a pretty obvious definition of credentialism, irregardless of the validity of the opinions in question, or the functional usefulness of being a credentialist.
> A belief that those who know nothing about an issue should put preference into the opinions of credentialed individuals over the uncredentialled seems
Except I never said that.. I intentionally used the word "experts"... an expert is someone who has deep knowledge in something, it is entirely independent of if they have a credential demonstrating that expertise or not.
What I find telling, however, is that despite the fact that I never made even the slightest reference to credentials, instead using the word "expert" explicitly to include those without credentials in both your mind and Crunk's you appear to equate being an "expert" with being synonymous with "having credentials"... which is the very thing your trying to argue people shouldnt do, trying to argue I am doing even when I'm not.
You are literally doing the very thing you are trying to accuse me of, at least, subconsciously.
P.S. I also pointed out if one lacks the expertise themselves they should simply opt to not have an opinion. You seemed to miss that part...
History of success and insight.. If you have made predictions on the topic in the past that are novel and have proven to be true by repeated application, or generally new insights or models, then your track record demonstrates you are an expert.
As with most things the proof is simply that you demonstrated it.
Einstein wasnt considered an expert until his theories actually turned out to be true, now today we see him as an expert. Few people think of him as an expert because of the degree he held, hell, most people dont even know what degree he held.
@freemo @icedquinn @realcaseyrollins @crunklord420 @commandlinekid
Yeah, perhaps my view is shaded because climate change is one of the areas where my years of study on the science has led to disagreement with the politicized establishment consensus. Putting the predictions decades out makes proving “expertise” that way in less than a century rather difficult.
Years of study doesnt make you an expert, demonstrating understanding does... What have you published that has provided new or predictive insight to climate change that has been shown to be true?
Usually when people say "years of study" they mean "I read lots of opinion pieces and references to studies I didnt understand"... thats not expertise. Did you take the time to understand the math and data behind the current climate change theories you claim to disagree with?
In other words, how can you show you have expertise?
@freemo @icedquinn @realcaseyrollins @crunklord420 @commandlinekid
Proving predictive insight for events millennia out is a pretty high goal post. My position is that we lack far too much information at this point to know for sure. Anyone who makes any study of historic co2 levels and understands simulations and has seen the code involved would realize there is no there there. Any one who has actual studied any number of involved subjects on any serious level and continues to back the consensus is either doing it for economic or political goals, but not in service of science or search for truth.
But reason and science have little sway to the masses above OMG the polar bears are starving. The number of people who grok the difference between c3 and c4 photosynthesis, Eemian sea levels, coral evolutionary history, or even the difference between an ice age and an interglacial is so small that discussing it with non experts is as pointless as chess with a hog.
At least there’s the cold comfort that future historians only comment on current climate scientists is that they made the Ptolemaic astronomers look more reasonable by comparison.
No one said you had to predict the climate millenia out.
We are evaluating if your expert on the topic of climate change. So what advances have you contributed to the field that demonstrates your expertise?
Even if its not an advance, have you shown any detailed analysis you posted somewhere on models, theories, or data that shows you have an intimiate knowledge of the current science of climate change?
I am asking you, why would you think your an expert enough to be able to form opinions in the first place?
The people you think are clearly corrupt to agree with the consensus are largely deep-experts on the topic, most have demonstrated their expertise by the quality of their past work... So again what do you have to show that would suggest you have enough expertise to even know how to critique the current science? What are your accomplishments that demonstrate your expertise? Are there any?
@freemo @icedquinn @realcaseyrollins @crunklord420 @commandlinekid
“ when you are proven expert “ what method of proof do you propose for expertise beyond degrees or certifications, or credentials