3 ms·
I completely disagree. These particular incidents highlight those occasions when new knowledge had to overcome challenges between experts, It completely ignore
by intended 10y ago
I completely disagree. These particular incidents highlight those occasions when new knowledge had to overcome challenges between experts,
It completely ignores the many times experts knew things, and applied them and improved the working of their field.
You are absolutely overfitting an example used to highlight a pitfall. Instead you are using it to dismiss experts.
In other words you are re-broadcasting the anti expert propaganda which is constantly being spread for the past several decades.
Do note: if this was a modern news channel, The usual next step would be to bring up a total hack and have them repeat some truly outlandish claim, and state "the experts are all in cahoots, and are against homeopathy/AGW/etc. they have a monetary interest!"
Of course experts have a monetary interest. Expert Programmers are experts in their code. They earn a living off of it. Does that stop them from making rational choices.
- kaoD 10y agoHonestly, he has a point. It's not even that their jobs depend on stagnation: often being an expert makes you blind to new facts and change, shielded on your own expertise. Being an expert only means you've had lots of exper-ience in the field. Less empirical sciences rapidly change (or worse, simultaneously holds contradicting) views and thus, generate distrust. Experts, except the truly groundbreaking ones, are only good at touting the status quo. They're just more likely to be correct because, well, the status quo in science is the most "unincorrect" knowledge we have. So far. You're just bringing up a strawman with the homeopathy "example".