3 ms·

If credible sources from experts don’t matter to you, then I don’t think there is any way you’ll be convicted of anything. Doesn’t sound like you’re actually op

If credible sources from experts don’t matter to you, then I don’t think there is any way you’ll be convicted of anything. Doesn’t sound like you’re actually open to discussion.

kkfx 5y ago
I simply call "credible sources from experts" other things. In the recent past we read that blue fish are "the protein of the sea, eat much" then "blue fish collect all sort of pollutants, avoid it". We see "eggs are a godsend for health, eat them at minimum one per day" and then again "eggs are 'cholesterol' avoid them, limiting them as possible" etc. In an a bit far past (not that far) doctors recommend smoking as a cure-all for common winter disease, "it kills all the germs of the season", years after we discover that was just the result of an Eduard Bernays campaign for the American Tobacco Company: he create a new scientific journal, collecting real studies and sending it for free "to advertise the new journal", it became popular thanks to easy access and low entry barrier for publishing, then he inject some credible studies that prize smoking. MANY OTHERS researchers have followed them, taking them as true, and amplifying the echo. Long story short, I have enough basic scientific knowledge to discern and to remember that Science is not based on blind trusting some "expert" but always demand why. Take meat for instance, common voices, dressed as scientific truth say that's bad for climate change because demand much water and produce much methane. Now try to see how much methane we estimate released into the atmosphere due to arctic heating and how much CO₂ is annually release by world fires. Clearly methane from cows does not change the climate. Now water: yes, livestock drink, clean water, and release urine, witch is not clean water. BUT it's still water. If treated to produce natural (ammonia-based) fertilizers we desperately need, the outcome is clean water, because we do not "consume" it, it's just a cycle. So again that statement is true if we just see a small part of the picture, false otherwise. That's is, I have collect many examples of false beliefs considered established Science that aren't science at all. Of course I do know the ancient pro-smoking campaign was an advertisement campaign because that's history, we have documents, what's up today is "present" documents are not public, at least not much and not yet, but while we can't know "the real truth" we can still try to discern what's probably true from what's probably false, choosing not to trust any guru or formal association, privately founded just to note, but using actual Scientific method, demanding evidence, elaborating it.

If credible sources from experts don’t matter to you, then I don’t think there is any way you’ll be convicted of anything. Doesn’t sound like you’re actually open to discussion.

kkfx 5y ago

I simply call "credible sources from experts" other things. In the recent past we read that blue fish are "the protein of the sea, eat much" then "blue fish collect all sort of pollutants, avoid it". We see "eggs are a godsend for health, eat them at minimum one per day" and then again "eggs are 'cholesterol' avoid them, limiting them as possible" etc. In an a bit far past (not that far) doctors recommend smoking as a cure-all for common winter disease, "it kills all the germs of the season", years after we discover that was just the result of an Eduard Bernays campaign for the American Tobacco Company: he create a new scientific journal, collecting real studies and sending it for free "to advertise the new journal", it became popular thanks to easy access and low entry barrier for publishing, then he inject some credible studies that prize smoking. MANY OTHERS researchers have followed them, taking them as true, and amplifying the echo. Long story short, I have enough basic scientific knowledge to discern and to remember that Science is not based on blind trusting some "expert" but always demand why. Take meat for instance, common voices, dressed as scientific truth say that's bad for climate change because demand much water and produce much methane. Now try to see how much methane we estimate released into the atmosphere due to arctic heating and how much CO₂ is annually release by world fires. Clearly methane from cows does not change the climate. Now water: yes, livestock drink, clean water, and release urine, witch is not clean water. BUT it's still water. If treated to produce natural (ammonia-based) fertilizers we desperately need, the outcome is clean water, because we do not "consume" it, it's just a cycle. So again that statement is true if we just see a small part of the picture, false otherwise. That's is, I have collect many examples of false beliefs considered established Science that aren't science at all. Of course I do know the ancient pro-smoking campaign was an advertisement campaign because that's history, we have documents, what's up today is "present" documents are not public, at least not much and not yet, but while we can't know "the real truth" we can still try to discern what's probably true from what's probably false, choosing not to trust any guru or formal association, privately founded just to note, but using actual Scientific method, demanding evidence, elaborating it.