All this nonsense about the “Experts” and “The Science”.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.

a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.

last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.

But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.

That is not what I said.

A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.

It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..

I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.

If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.

People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.

If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.

All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.

You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?

Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.

The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.

You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.

Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.

 

[PredFan]

For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.

a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.

last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.

But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.

That is not what I said.

A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.

It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..

I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.

If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.

People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.

If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.

All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.

You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?

Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.

The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.

You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.

Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.

Nice try but I’m not buying it.

Scientific success doesn’t mean all science is correct.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.

a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.

last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.

But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.

That is not what I said.

A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.

It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..

I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.

If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.

People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.

If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.

All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.

You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?

Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.

The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.

You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.

Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.

Nice try but I’m not buying it.

Scientific success doesn’t mean all science is correct.

And science sometimes making changes is not a good reason to doubt any specific bit of science. And guess how we know science needs to be modified? More science. Irrational doubt is not useful.

 

[PredFan]

For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.

a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.

last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.

But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.

That is not what I said.

A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.

It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..

I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.

If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.

People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.

If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.

All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.

You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?

Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.

The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.

You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.

Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.

Nice try but I’m not buying it.

Scientific success doesn’t mean all science is correct.

And science sometimes making changes is not a good reason to doubt any specific bit of science. And guess how we know science needs to be modified? More science. Irrational doubt is not useful.

Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.

 

[PredFan]

I don’t need to be an astrophysicist to know our sun is a star.

I don’t need to be an engineer to know that a marshmallow won’t support a bowling ball.

I don’t need to be a doctor to know that if I’m throwing up blood, I need to go to the ER.

I don’t need to be a climatologist to know that it’s cold in the winter and warm in the summer.

The point of that is not to let others think for you. If suddenly tomorrow, we are told that the sun is a orange, and you can support a bowling ball with a donut, and throwing up blood is a normal Monday, you should not believe it no matter who it is that’s telling it to you.

And yes, many of you are at that extreme of gullibility.

 

[ReinyDays]

Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.

The biological sciences are a particularly poor example, where so much of the science is in flux as we gain new tools for investigating, DNA sequencing for example ... and medical science is the worst, procedures are performed not because of science, but rather for medical malpractice liability ... it's the courts that determine everything that goes into by-pass surgery ... healthy skepticism can quickly drive a hospital into bankruptcy ... no matter the science ...

Scientific papers are required to detail very aspect of their study ... this allows skeptics to perform the work themselves and see if the results are true ... cold fusion is an excellent example, the original authors stated everything they did, and indeed no one else could reproduce the results they got ... proper science includes failures, as what doesn't work is just as important as what does work ...

 

[PredFan]

Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.

The biological sciences are a particularly poor example, where so much of the science is in flux as we gain new tools for investigating, DNA sequencing for example ... and medical science is the worst, procedures are performed not because of science, but rather for medical malpractice liability ... it's the courts that determine everything that goes into by-pass surgery ... healthy skepticism can quickly drive a hospital into bankruptcy ... no matter the science ...

Scientific papers are required to detail very aspect of their study ... this allows skeptics to perform the work themselves and see if the results are true ... cold fusion is an excellent example, the original authors stated everything they did, and indeed no one else could reproduce the results they got ... proper science includes failures, as what doesn't work is just as important as what does work ...

you are confusing a lot of issues here.

The biological sciences are not a poor issue when used as I am doing to illustrate why you shouldn’t place all your trust in “experts” and science. Virology is a biological science and it fits my point very well.

It’s not the malpractice lawyers that produce scientific studies and papers.

“by-pass” surgery is different from a bypass machine or heart-lung bypass.

and a healthy dose of skepticism never drove a hospital into bankruptcy.

 

[justinacolmena]

Young people are no longer taught to think.

They certainly aren't taught to question the “science” presented to them or think critically on their own.

 

[justinacolmena]

“by-pass” surgery is different from a bypass machine or heart-lung bypass.

A bowl of oatmeal or corn grits for breakfast every morning will de-clot your blood and remove that extra cholesterol from your heart like magic.
Some people need heavy cream on their cereal or bacon and eggs some mornings to balance that out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.

a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.

last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.

But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.

That is not what I said.

A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.

It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..

I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.

If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.

People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.

If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.

All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.

You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?

Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.

The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.

You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.

Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.

Nice try but I’m not buying it.

Scientific success doesn’t mean all science is correct.

And science sometimes making changes is not a good reason to doubt any specific bit of science. And guess how we know science needs to be modified? More science. Irrational doubt is not useful.

Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.

Exactly my point. You are promoting irrational doubt, not skepticism.

 

[PredFan]

For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.

a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.

last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.

But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.

That is not what I said.

A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.

It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..

I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.

If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.

People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.

If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.

All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.

You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?

Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.

The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.

You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.

Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.

Nice try but I’m not buying it.

Scientific success doesn’t mean all science is correct.

And science sometimes making changes is not a good reason to doubt any specific bit of science. And guess how we know science needs to be modified? More science. Irrational doubt is not useful.

Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.

Exactly my point. You are promoting irrational doubt, not skepticism.

Now you are just making stuff up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.

a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.

last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.

But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.

That is not what I said.

A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.

It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..

I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.

If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.

People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.

If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.

All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.

You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?

Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.

The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.

You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.

Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.

Nice try but I’m not buying it.

Scientific success doesn’t mean all science is correct.

And science sometimes making changes is not a good reason to doubt any specific bit of science. And guess how we know science needs to be modified? More science. Irrational doubt is not useful.

Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.

Exactly my point. You are promoting irrational doubt, not skepticism.

Now you are just making stuff up.

No, you are definitely promoting irrational doubt. Skepticism is a process by which you evaluate claims by the evidence available instead of just believing them for no good reason. yet you have given us no method whatsoever for when this doubt you promote should be applied. All you have done is promote doubt and try to undermine experts and science by putting them in air quotes. It's a setup to irrationally doubt any experts or science that don't align with your politics or personal fetishes.

 

[PredFan]

For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.

a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.

last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.

But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.

That is not what I said.

A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.

It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..

I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.

If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.

People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.

If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.

All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.

You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?

Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.

The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.

You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.

Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.

Nice try but I’m not buying it.

Scientific success doesn’t mean all science is correct.

And science sometimes making changes is not a good reason to doubt any specific bit of science. And guess how we know science needs to be modified? More science. Irrational doubt is not useful.

Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.

Exactly my point. You are promoting irrational doubt, not skepticism.

Now you are just making stuff up.

No, you are definitely promoting irrational doubt. Skepticism is a process by which you evaluate claims by the evidence available instead of just believing them for no good reason. yet you have given us no method whatsoever for when this doubt you promote should be applied. All you have done is promote doubt and try to undermine experts and science by putting them in air quotes. It's a setup to irrationally doubt any experts or science that don't align with your politics or personal fetishes.

So you make the rules do you? Since when do I or anyone need to show a method to be skeptical? Skepticism is in fact doubt. The issue is your “Irrational” label.

You don’t seem to be ignorant, so I am left with assuming that you are simply making stuff up to try not to lose your argument. Believe what you want, but it appears you have nothing more to contribute to this discussion.

 

[ChemEngineer]

People look to experts because they're not arrogant (Vulgar expletive deleted) that think they have the depth of knowledge, experience and context to contend with the views of people that do it for a living. Are you going to question the views of neurosurgeons on matters involving your brain? Most people are smart enough to listen to their fucking mechanic. The magnitude of arrogance and ignorance it takes to wave off the views of the most qualified people on Earth is staggering.

"Heavier than air human flight is impossible." - President of the Royal Society, Lord Kelvin, 1895

Two bicycle mechanics flew seven years later. Their propeller was designed with 93% of optimum efficiency.

Medical "experts" kill 250,000 to 400,000 patients A YEAR through their "expertise."


The arrogance and ignorance of the Left is sickening.

 

[ChemEngineer]

(no title)

TheEducationFraud.wordpress.com

 

[ChemEngineer]

Rather that think, many people would rather simply link to “experts” or “follow the science”.

I blame our education system and the teachers and professors for doing a shitty job often intentionally. Young people are no longer taught to think.

If you thought about it at all, you’d realize that there are some significant problems with this.

First of all, science and scientists are fallible, they are human too. If you know history, you will know that sciencehas been wrongmore often than right. Scientists USED to believe that they learned just as much from being wrong as they did from being right.

Another problem is that science is for sale. Give a scientist a job and pay him well and he’ll give you science to say whatever you want. Did you know that the tobacco companies had teams of scientists on their side years ago who would claim that there was no link to health problems from smoking.

Another problem with trusting the science and scientists is that science has been politicized. It’s easy to do. Our institutions of “learning” are run by the left and if you want to keep a job and want to be taken seriously, you toe the line.

The biggest danger in letting someone else think for you is that you can easily be duped. Just trot out a well paid and politically connected “expert” and they can get you to believe anything they want you to.

that’s exactly the goal of education and politics today. Keeping people from thinking for themselves.

(no title)

TheEducationFraud.wordpress.com

 

[Hollie]

“by-pass” surgery is different from a bypass machine or heart-lung bypass.

A bowl of oatmeal or corn grits for breakfast every morning will de-clot your blood and remove that extra cholesterol from your heart like magic.
Some people need heavy cream on their cereal or bacon and eggs some mornings to balance that out.

Was it those evilutionist atheist scientists who identified those breakfast habits or did you learn that from a study prepared by the church?

 

[Hollie]

People look to experts because they're not arrogant (Vulgar expletive deleted) that think they have the depth of knowledge, experience and context to contend with the views of people that do it for a living. Are you going to question the views of neurosurgeons on matters involving your brain? Most people are smart enough to listen to their fucking mechanic. The magnitude of arrogance and ignorance it takes to wave off the views of the most qualified people on Earth is staggering.

"Heavier than air human flight is impossible." - President of the Royal Society, Lord Kelvin, 1895

Two bicycle mechanics flew seven years later. Their propeller was designed with 93% of optimum efficiency.

Medical "experts" kill 250,000 to 400,000 patients A YEAR through their "expertise."


The arrogance and ignorance of the Left is sickening.

View attachment 432700

The Catholic Church operated a Child sex abuse syndicate for decades. Aren't you special.

Tell you what, if you contract a serious illness, treat it with prayer, rattle bones, read tea leaves, whatever, or seek competent medical care.

We both know which you will choose.

 

[ChemEngineer]

People look to experts because they're not arrogant ******** that think they have the depth of knowledge, experience and context to contend with the views of people that do it for a living. Are you going to question the views of neurosurgeons on matters involving your brain? Most people are smart enough to listen to their ******* mechanic. The magnitude of arrogance and ignorance it takes to wave off the views of the most qualified people on Earth is staggering.

YOU demonstrate no small degree of arrogance and ignorance. Staggering, truly.
I edited out your ignorant profanity, a staple among Leftists, as if it makes the nonsense you write more compelling or "scientific."

1. Medical doctors kill 250,000 to 400,000 patients every year, according to recent studies.
2. Mechanics screw customers every day of the week. One told me I needed two tires as mine had "tread separation." I asked to see it. He simply waved me to the car and said "right there." He was lying through his yellow teeth. I reported him to the Department of Automotive Repairs and they inspected my tires, finding them perfect.
He was warned that if they ever got another complaint on him, they would close his shop. I also reported his franchise to his home office and they were REALLY pissed that he besmirched their reputation.
3. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," -- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

4. "Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."- Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.

5. "Radio has no future." - Lord Kelvin, Scottish mathematician and physicist, former president of the Royal Society, 1897

How many more of these would you like to see, Anomalism, 20? 50? 100?
I've got them. Ironic, is it not, that two uneducated bicycle mechanics showed Lord Kelvin what could be done. They fabricated a propeller which was within 4% of being absolutely optimal. What have you done, genius? Tell us your greatest accomplishment. We would all love to hear it. Really.

 

[ChemEngineer]

People look to experts because they're not arrogant ******** that think they have the depth of knowledge, experience and context to contend with the views of people that do it for a living. Are you going to question the views of neurosurgeons on matters involving your brain? Most people are smart enough to listen to their ******* mechanic. The magnitude of arrogance and ignorance it takes to wave off the views of the most qualified people on Earth is staggering.

YOU demonstrate no small degree of arrogance and ignorance. Staggering, truly.
I edited out your ignorant profanity, a staple among Leftists, as if it makes the nonsense you write more compelling or "scientific."

1. Medical doctors kill 250,000 to 400,000 patients every year, according to recent studies.
2. Mechanics screw customers every day of the week. One told me I needed two tires as mine had "tread separation." I asked to see it. He simply waved me to the car and said "right there." He was lying through his yellow teeth. I reported him to the Department of Automotive Repairs and they inspected my tires, finding them perfect.
He was warned that if they ever got another complaint on him, they would close his shop. I also reported his franchise to his home office and they were REALLY pissed that he besmirched their reputation.
3. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," -- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

4. "Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."- Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.

5. "Radio has no future." - Lord Kelvin, Scottish mathematician and physicist, former president of the Royal Society, 1897

How many more of these would you like to see, Anomalism, 20? 50? 100?
I've got them. Ironic, is it not, that two uneducated bicycle mechanics showed Lord Kelvin what could be done. They fabricated a propeller which was within 4% of being absolutely optimal. What have you done, genius? Tell us your greatest accomplishment. We would all love to hear it. Really.

No reply from the arrogant Leftist to my challenge. Very well, I will add many, many more follies from these experts and giants of science and technology through the ages:

“The sun appears to be nothing else than a very eminent, large, and lucid planet…. Its similarity to the other globes of the solar system, with regard to its solidity, its atmosphere, and its diversified surface; the rotation upon its axis,and the fall of heavy bodies leads us on to suppose that it is most probably inhabited, like the rest of the planets, by beings whose organs are adapted to the peculiar circumstances of that vast globe.” – William Herschel (1738-1822) , discoverer of the planet Uranus, eminent observer and builder of telescopes


"We have been cocksure of many things that were not so." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.


"This isn't right, this isn't even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli

"Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."- Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.


Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy," -- Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.


"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," -- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873


"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us," -- Western Union internal memo, 1876


"The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys." - Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, British Post Office, 1878.

... good enough for our transatlantic friends ... but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men. - British Parliamentary Committee, referring to Edison's light bulb, 1878.


“The evidence for the existence of the luminiferous ether has accumulated as additional phenomena of light and other radiations have been discovered; and the properties of this medium, as deduced from the phenomena of light, have been found to be precisely those required to explain electromagnetic phenomena.” - James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," -- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.


"It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere."- Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1895.


"Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." - Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1889 (Edison often ridiculed the arguments of competitor George Westinghouse for AC power).


"Radio has no future." - Lord Kelvin, Scottish mathematician and physicist, former president of the Royal Society, 1897


"Everything that can be invented has been invented." - Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899


"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value," -- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1904


"That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced."- Scientific American, Jan. 2 edition, 1909


HMS Titanic was doing 22 knots at night in known iceberg fields when it struck a glancing blow and sunk four hours later. Captain Edward Smith was the most experienced ocean liner Commodore in the world when he went down with 1,511 passengers and crew on April 12, 1912.


"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" -- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.


"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" - H. M. Warner (1881-1958), founder of Warner Brothers, in 1927

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." -- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923

"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." -- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."- Albert Einstein, 1932.

"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper," - Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind."

"The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." - Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time.

"Gentlemen we cannot lose now, for on our side is an empire that has not lost a war in 3000 years of history." – Adolf Hitler after December 7, 1941


"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson (1874-1956), Chairman of IBM, 1943


"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." -- Dr. Lee DeForest, Inventor of TV

"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." -- Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project, advising President Truman on atomic weaponry, 1944.


"Very interesting Whittle, my boy, but it will never work."- Cambridge Aeronautics Professor, when shown Frank Whittle's plan for the jet engine.


"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

"It will be gone by June." - Variety, passing judgment on rock 'n roll in 1955.

"Space travel is utter bilge." - Richard Van Der Riet Woolley, upon assuming the post of Astronomer Royal in 1956.

"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." -- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957

"Space travel is bunk." - Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth).

"There will never be a bigger plane built." - A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people.

"We stand on the threshold of rocket mail." -– U.S. postmaster general Arthur Summerfield, in 1959.

"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible," -- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)

"A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make," -- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies.

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out," -- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

"Transmission of documents via telephone wires is possible in principle, but the apparatus required is so expensive that it will never become a practical proposition."- Dennis Gabor, British physicist and author of Inventing the Future, 1962.

"There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States."- T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, in 1961 (the first commercial communications satellite went into service in 1965).

"But what ... is it good for?" -- Engineer Robert Lloyd at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.


"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this," -- Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M "Post-It" Notepads

"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." -- professor of electrical engineering, New York University

"I don't know what use any one could find for a machine that would make copies of documents. It certainly couldn't be a feasible business by itself." -- the head of IBM, refusing to back the idea, forcing the inventor to found Xerox

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977



Jacob Van Zanten was KLM Airline’s senior pilot and instructor when he began his takeoff roll on Tenerife Island without takeoff clearance, crashing into TWA Flight 1736 on the runway at Los Rodeos Airport, resulting in 583 fatalities, the deadliest in aviation history. – March 27, 1977

"Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought." -The National Academy of Sciences, 1981 [But the Big Bang can only be understood as a “miracle.” – Allan Sandage, one of the leading astronomers of the world] Only one of the preceding statements can be true.