3 ms·
Specialization is an unavoidable fact of life. Not everyone can be an expert in everything. If my car mechanic (or 99 out of 100 car mechanics) says I need new
by jaredklewis 8y ago
Specialization is an unavoidable fact of life. Not everyone can be an expert in everything. If my car mechanic (or 99 out of 100 car mechanics) says I need new brake pads, and I don’t know anything about car maintenance, why would I reject their diagnosis? I would not only be endangering myself, but other drivers.
If I am going to reject my mechanic’s diagnosis I need to have strong evidence and reasoning to support my position. Climate deniers don’t have that, and their pigheadedness puts everyone at danger.
Efforts to summarize the scientific evidence for global warming for laymen are myriad. The arguments and evidence for global warming are extremely accessible.
I don’t see how the blame isn’t on the climate deniers.
- chillee 8y agoEhh, I understand your point in general, but I think it's significantly more nuanced than that. Take the car mechanic. His incentives don't completely align with yours. Taking a benign example, his goals are to keep your car in good condition and to make money. Your goals are to keep your car in good condition and to save money. Thus, the car mechanic might err on the side of caution and suggest you replace your car brakes every 30 thousand miles, while you (assuming you knew all the relevant information) would only replace the brakes every 50 thousand miles. In the absence of "strong evidence and reasoning", you may still reasonably decide that you don't trust the mechanic.
- jaredklewis 8y agoSure, a given mechanic or a given surgeon might err. So go get a second opinion. But if you get 99 second opinions, and all but one agrees with the original mechanic, rejection of that diagnosis is an extraordinary claim. And an extraordinary claim requires strong evidence and reasoning if your decision is going to put the lives of others at risk.