3 ms·

Is Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier not science worthy enough to give credit or what is your point? Or is science a democratic forum where the most votes win and n

Is Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier not science worthy enough to give credit or what is your point? Or is science a democratic forum where the most votes win and not facts? If it's not facts but guesstimates then everybody has equal input into that, some intuitively more so.

orwin 6y ago
You're probably not french nor in a quack-watch group (anti-guru groups essentially). Luc montagnier made a lot of money writing about how homeopathy works thanks to water memory, i'd say i would disqualify every work he's done since then if it is not peer-reviewd.
- fierarul 6y ago
  I didn't know that. But in a way this further proves my point. How can one be expected to "stick to one's lane" when you have to check on each and every "expert" out there. It is quite valid to think by oneself! It's surprising to me the GP looked at what a Nobel laureate said with trust and was still told to "stick to one's lane". And if science facts need to be "voted on" by a majority of scientists then it stops being a fact and more like an informed guess. But that doesn't necessarily mean a layman could not reach the same or a better conclusion.
  - robbiep 6y ago
    When things are so clearly bullshit then the point of being 'open minded' about things that are done and dusted only serves to confuse and obfuscate. Take the US at the moment. A contry ripped apart by anti-scientific thinking. To be more specific, the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are still potentially unknown but if the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it has natural origin. So what does the purpose of dissenting voices, and the average joe seizing on one of these because 'it feels right'? It's the same problem that has lead to anti-vaccers - the unneecessary sewing of doubt where it is not their place to doubt. Stay open minded, ask important questions, but for gods sake, if you are not a scientist, recognise that those that are trained people who are doing much of the hard work for you. And scientific concensus is not going to be overturned by someone listening to the president on fox news or one outlier quack peddler

orwin 6y ago

You're probably not french nor in a quack-watch group (anti-guru groups essentially). Luc montagnier made a lot of money writing about how homeopathy works thanks to water memory, i'd say i would disqualify every work he's done since then if it is not peer-reviewd.

fierarul 6y ago
I didn't know that. But in a way this further proves my point. How can one be expected to "stick to one's lane" when you have to check on each and every "expert" out there. It is quite valid to think by oneself! It's surprising to me the GP looked at what a Nobel laureate said with trust and was still told to "stick to one's lane". And if science facts need to be "voted on" by a majority of scientists then it stops being a fact and more like an informed guess. But that doesn't necessarily mean a layman could not reach the same or a better conclusion.
- robbiep 6y ago
  When things are so clearly bullshit then the point of being 'open minded' about things that are done and dusted only serves to confuse and obfuscate. Take the US at the moment. A contry ripped apart by anti-scientific thinking. To be more specific, the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are still potentially unknown but if the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it has natural origin. So what does the purpose of dissenting voices, and the average joe seizing on one of these because 'it feels right'? It's the same problem that has lead to anti-vaccers - the unneecessary sewing of doubt where it is not their place to doubt. Stay open minded, ask important questions, but for gods sake, if you are not a scientist, recognise that those that are trained people who are doing much of the hard work for you. And scientific concensus is not going to be overturned by someone listening to the president on fox news or one outlier quack peddler