Opinion What's the deal with layman(s) questioning the credentials and scientific ability of actual experts?

[Deleted member 592570]

This will always happen, even when there’s no malice or political influence just based on probabilities and how one chooses to reject the null hypothesis.

So you recognize that the most high god of 'science' is compromised by malice and the scientists' personal politics.

Carry on then.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Because as Douglas Murray proved , experts can be inherently bias.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Ok, Bane

 

[Sinister]

For my job, I often have to speak at conferences and events sharing aspects of my research, or being asked to comment about certain topical issues.

I make a fairly concerted effort to be as neutral as possible and rely on what the available data is telling me - in fact, my talks are often specifically about something called "material agnosticism" (there is no such thing as a good or bad material, it depends on the context and application in which it is being used). It is a position that is gaining a lot of traction in the product design space, as it doesn't ascribe value based characteristics to something like plastics vs. paper.

On several occasions now, I have had members of the audience make baseless claims completely divorced from scientific reality. The most recent examples were about micro-plastics - at one conference, an audience member said "Microplastics cause heart attacks". The exact opposite occurred at a different event, where somebody claimed that microplastics don't exist. Trying to explain to people what the data is actually suggesting is a fools errand. They either accuse me of being a paid shill, or that they read their own trusted sources (usually on reddit/facebook/youtube).

I don't go into a mechanic and say "I know more about fixing a transmission because I watched a youtube video", so why are these people with no background questioning my knowledge? It takes every ounce of restraint not to call them retarded, and I am forced to be conciliatory and feign respect for their opinions.

Anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of impending fascism. When they take over (on behalf of capital interests), the first thing they attack are learning institutions. Basically anyone with sense enough to resist and push back. This is usually prefaced by social disruption of valuing learning. Language appears such as "useless degrees"...and included in those are things like philosophy. Meanwhile many thought leaders or revolutionary leaders were philosophers throughout History. Huey P. Newton had a philosphy degree. Right after the "useless" degrees (useless because they don't seem to directly serve capital), comes the sciences. You make up conspiracies about why science is all wrong, because people who are superstitious as opposed to scientific are easier to control so long as you placate their insecurities.

 

[Stoic1]

It’s so interesting to me how you guys single out Fauci, when the most prolific and public spreader of COVID misinformation was Trump, whose knob you slob continually.

Here is why we can't take you seriously.

Defend Fauci and villify Trump.

Fauci funded gain of function research in Wuhan, lied about it, kept up a wet market narrative, collaborated with the CCP in a cover up (Evergrande), etc.

 

[Trabaho]

Microplastics in food posion us ? True ? That´s what she meant. Drinking hot coffe from a plastic cup.

 

[Brampton_Boy]

When you were pushed by interviewers to connect your waste management expertise to climate change, why didn't you explain that you cannot make this connection because it is not your area of expertise?

If you can find a single example (and I have done dozens of television interviews) where I claim to be a climate change expert, I will give you $100. At most, I can comment on the role that diversion and circular systems can play in potentially mitigating against the environmental footprint of virgin production, but I am not a climate scientist.

For the record, I actually run Canada's largest university lab devoted to waste management research, and a big part of what we do is conducting life cycle analysis for large CPG companies to identify the most sustainable materials. Here is something that might surprise you - climate mitigation and sustainability are not the same thing, and people should not conflate the two.

 

[The Servant]

For my job, I often have to speak at conferences and events sharing aspects of my research, or being asked to comment about certain topical issues.

I make a fairly concerted effort to be as neutral as possible and rely on what the available data is telling me - in fact, my talks are often specifically about something called "material agnosticism" (there is no such thing as a good or bad material, it depends on the context and application in which it is being used). It is a position that is gaining a lot of traction in the product design space, as it doesn't ascribe value based characteristics to something like plastics vs. paper.

On several occasions now, I have had members of the audience make baseless claims completely divorced from scientific reality. The most recent examples were about micro-plastics - at one conference, an audience member said "Microplastics cause heart attacks". The exact opposite occurred at a different event, where somebody claimed that microplastics don't exist. Trying to explain to people what the data is actually suggesting is a fools errand. They either accuse me of being a paid shill, or that they read their own trusted sources (usually on reddit/facebook/youtube).

I don't go into a mechanic and say "I know more about fixing a transmission because I watched a youtube video", so why are these people with no background questioning my knowledge? It takes every ounce of restraint not to call them retarded, and I am forced to be conciliatory and feign respect for their opinions.

In hindsight how many things did the experts get wrong on Covid-19? It shattered people's belief in scientific authority. I won't go over the points but the trust the science movement did a lot of damage.

 

[gatchaman]

If you can find a single example (and I have done dozens of television interviews) where I claim to be a climate change expert, I will give you $100. At most, I can comment on the role that diversion and circular systems can play in potentially mitigating against the environmental footprint of virgin production, but I am not a climate scientist.

For the record, I actually run Canada's largest university lab devoted to waste management research, and a big part of what we do is conducting life cycle analysis for large CPG companies to identify the most sustainable materials. Here is something that might surprise you - climate mitigation and sustainability are not the same thing, and people should not conflate the two.

Would you repost the one where you worried on Mayberry that you looked fat?

 

[Trabaho]

Who decides what science is true ? Another scientist ? You can not prove every scientific statement. You literaly can´t at what point is it a fact ? Are IQ tests science ?

 

[Stoic1]

Anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of impending fascism. When they take over (on behalf of capital interests), the first thing they attack are learning institutions. Basically anyone with sense enough to resist and push back. This is usually prefaced by social disruption of valuing learning. Language appears such as "useless degrees"...and included in those are things like philosophy. Meanwhile many thought leaders or revolutionary leaders were philosophers throughout History. Huey P. Newton had a philosphy degree. Right after the "useless" degrees (useless because they don't seem to directly serve capital), comes the sciences. You make up conspiracies about why science is all wrong, because people who are superstitious as opposed to scientific are easier to control so long as you placate their insecurities.

You're exactly correct.

We have witnessed the left's concentrated efforts where it has completely compromised the institutions. If you want to see real fascism try being a conservative on a campus today.

If you want to see further evidence go further down into public schools where America has fallen to 24th(?) In world rankings. So focused on gender studies and activism our kids can barely read and write.

 

[Trabaho]

Anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of impending fascism. When they take over (on behalf of capital interests), the first thing they attack are learning institutions. Basically anyone with sense enough to resist and push back. This is usually prefaced by social disruption of valuing learning. Language appears such as "useless degrees"...and included in those are things like philosophy. Meanwhile many thought leaders or revolutionary leaders were philosophers throughout History. Huey P. Newton had a philosphy degree. Right after the "useless" degrees (useless because they don't seem to directly serve capital), comes the sciences. You make up conspiracies about why science is all wrong, because people who are superstitious as opposed to scientific are easier to control so long as you placate their insecurities.

over valueing book smarts makes people who aren´t genetically made to sit in front of books for 5 years in a row poor. Instincts kick in. Violence. Leader of the pack eats first, chosen by violence. Book readers can´t forever hoard the money and good life and pass it on to their childreen. At one point it´s - bitch I´m stronger than you give me your money.

 

[Soggust]

I think it's fair to question and even critique experts, but the problem is when a side says, "I don't trust anything the 'experts' (or even non experts) are saying because I know they were wrong previously" - which isn't attacking the argument, it's refusing to engage.

I don't think it would be out of line to ask someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, "Hey, I know the moon landing being faked is considered a conspiracy theory, but I heard a compelling take on YouTube about the flag waving without oxygen. Can you explain this to me?"

That's a LOT different take than "The flag is waving with no oxygen. Some say there is a horizontal bar, but I don't trust the Government, so I don't believe it". Now, we aren't fact-checking the horizontal bar, we are refusing to engage with the argument.

 

[Witchhunt]

What do you do when two people with medical degrees and labs have differing opinions?

You shut one of them up

 

[Rob Battisti]

During Covid the whole “trust the science” and “don’t do your own research” pushed people the other way.

 

[curryjunkie]

Well, this thread is a self selecting experiment..

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Two main reasons.

1. Having credentials doesn't inherently make you competent.

2. Having credentials doesn't make you trustworthy or beyond taking bribes or bending to threats to do the will of those in government and business. This is the more important and prevalent reason.

these are defenitely huge reasons why.

but dont forget the grifters and strong men who see that vacuum of trust and knowledge and use it to manipulate peoples uncertainties and anger around it.

we have now moved into the idiocracy stage of the problem filled with grifters and charlatans.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Science isn't religion, it's not infallible.

So you debunk bad science/research with good science/research from scholars and researchers, not with "nah, that's bullshit" from Joe the mechanic.

It’s almost like it’s systematic. Like the process of creating new science involves proving old science wrong. A “scientific process”, if you will.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Modern science has afforded the people in this country a lifestyle that allows them to act like modern science is a scam. It's really as simple as that.

I wish I could find the daily show interview they did in the burbs have an upper middle class white city where anti-VAX Karen’s we’re so ignorant of science that there were a rash of disease is making a comeback that we hadn’t seen in generations. It was perfect.

 

[Trabaho]

Science isn't religion, it's not infallible.

So you debunk bad science/research with good science/research from scholars and researchers, not with "nah, that's bullshit" from Joe the mechanic.

So what is the point of calling it science if it gets dsiproved and replaced ? What made it science in the first place ? Are yoy waiting on someone to tell you what the truth is. If science gets refuted and replaced it was not science to begin with but merely and opinion.

Mechanics can be smart. People who learned to recite books for 5 years can be stupid also. Self thinkers are smart. You gotta be smart to figure who to believe. Just attaching the word science to someone doesn't make me think they are smarter than anyone else and only speak in facts.