4 ms·
My personal pet hypothesis is that people see experts to advocate one point only to be it revealed later they had a conflict of interest. Some scientists were
by sobkas 4y ago
My personal pet hypothesis is that people see experts to advocate one point only to be it revealed later they had a conflict of interest.
Some scientists were paid by tabaco/fossil fuel industries to spread doubt about harmful effects, generals (retired?) advocating for war while being consultants for firms that would benefit from it happening, leaded petrol, etc.
People don't trust experts because it's hard to distinguish between paid shill and real one. Especially in hyper capitalistic America, where almost anything is on table where it comes to money.
There are way too many people willing to cash in on their reputation just to get few dollars more. Maybe because lying to people have little to no consequences in the land of free speech(eg. doctors selling miracle cures and still able to practice).
- irq-1 4y agoI blame the media more than the experts. Does it matter if <0.1% of doctors took money from the tobacco companies without the media to amplify their influence? There are always frauds and corruption,but it's only when they're promoted and treated seriously that it's an issue.
- sobkas 4y agoMedia obsesion with providing both sides of the controversy is just a disgrace. Is earth flat? We will bring both sides of the argument, so audience will perceive it as equal arguments and think there is 50:50 split between scientists. And journalists will think of it as virtue. Let's provide both sides and let audience decide. We are so unbiased we can't distinguish reality from fiction. And also this is why journalism is on decline. People can't get answers from it, so why pay for it.
- Ekaros 4y agoAlso it seems all media at this point is partisan and agenda driven. So they might in some cases get experts on both sides when the issue is inconsequential, but they will never present both sides or even the story if it makes the side they push look bad. Or unless forced reveal their failures. You might have good honest expert, but they try to make sure they present only one side of their data. Thus leading other side rightfully discredit the entire thing.