3 ms·

the papers make a lot of specific arguments. if you have evidence against those arguments, you can say this point is wrong, here is the evidence against it, th

the papers make a lot of specific arguments. if you have evidence against those arguments, you can say this point is wrong, here is the evidence against it, therefore that claim is likely wrong. Thats science. Your method comes off as: thats not the consensus, thus you are wrong.

newacct583 6y ago
You're missing the point of "consensus". The value of having a scientific consensus of trusted sources is precisely that we don't have to all individually read random conspiracy nonsense and come up with counterarguments on our own. We can trust the experts. So if you come by with a theory that isn't supported by those experts, the burden is on YOU to convince people, not me. Now I know you're going to come right back and tell me why, this time, after the last thousand tries, the consensus really is wrong and the conspiracy nuts are actually believing in a REAL conspiracy this time. And again I'll rely on my general sense of statistics to tell me who to trust.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  > The value of having a scientific consensus of trusted sources is precisely that we don't have to all individually read random conspiracy nonsense and come up with counterarguments on our own. We can trust the experts. This sounds like a priesthood. Don’t consider evidence from rando papers. Instead, simply trust the consensus view of these certain, special people who have been blessed as truth-knowers and wear the right robes and hats.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    And this sounds like a description you read in a comic book somewhere. You missed some elements: that "priesthood" isn't a unified block, it's a gaggle of independent thinkers (some of them my friends and family) with a thousand year history of argumentation, refutation, and adjustment of theory. The "priesthood" gets it right, eventually, every time. Yeah, I'll trust that "priesthood". Unreviewed papers pushed by conspiracy nuts on the internet, on the other hand, don't exactly have that record to back them. They demand that non-experts "read it for themselves" precisely because they can't convince anyone who matters.

newacct583 6y ago

You're missing the point of "consensus". The value of having a scientific consensus of trusted sources is precisely that we don't have to all individually read random conspiracy nonsense and come up with counterarguments on our own. We can trust the experts. So if you come by with a theory that isn't supported by those experts, the burden is on YOU to convince people, not me. Now I know you're going to come right back and tell me why, this time, after the last thousand tries, the consensus really is wrong and the conspiracy nuts are actually believing in a REAL conspiracy this time. And again I'll rely on my general sense of statistics to tell me who to trust.

ryandrake 6y ago
> The value of having a scientific consensus of trusted sources is precisely that we don't have to all individually read random conspiracy nonsense and come up with counterarguments on our own. We can trust the experts. This sounds like a priesthood. Don’t consider evidence from rando papers. Instead, simply trust the consensus view of these certain, special people who have been blessed as truth-knowers and wear the right robes and hats.
- newacct583 6y ago
  And this sounds like a description you read in a comic book somewhere. You missed some elements: that "priesthood" isn't a unified block, it's a gaggle of independent thinkers (some of them my friends and family) with a thousand year history of argumentation, refutation, and adjustment of theory. The "priesthood" gets it right, eventually, every time. Yeah, I'll trust that "priesthood". Unreviewed papers pushed by conspiracy nuts on the internet, on the other hand, don't exactly have that record to back them. They demand that non-experts "read it for themselves" precisely because they can't convince anyone who matters.