4 ms·
Scientists are still people, funded by money that comes from other people. I don't think they should be revered. I don't think that there should ever be a "come
by orblivion 16y ago
Scientists are still people, funded by money that comes from other people. I don't think they should be revered. I don't think that there should ever be a "come on, this is what we believe now, get with the program". I'm always up for skepticism. I don't like this "what's wrong with these people that they're not listening to us" attitude.
EDIT: It's not a bad article, but it ignores the possibility that people doubt the particular scientists for legitimate reasons.
- jbooth 16y agohttp://xkcd.com/675/ http://xkcd.com/675/
- orblivion 16y agoSure, people shouldn't pretend to be scientists either. This is just about the fact that people have the right to raise objections outside of the realm of science. "Are these scientists paid by politicians or corporations?" "Are these scientists a little too sure of themselves on this theory to be dictating our lives just yet?"
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- lutorm 16y agoYou missed the point: people manufacture controversy in their heads when scientists say things they don't like. They don't argue against them, they erroneously think there's not a concensus. While I agree with you in principle that healthy skepticism is good, this is not that. Whether there is a scientific consensus is a fact that people reasonably are not free to be skeptics about.