4 ms·
This is probably true on a micro level but not on a macro level. There are probably a lot of things worth debating in the world of climate science, but the numb
by IceHegel 3y ago
This is probably true on a micro level but not on a macro level. There are probably a lot of things worth debating in the world of climate science, but the number of people who are allowed to even ask questions, is tiny. Basically, the only people with clearance to debate climate science are climate scientists, which is, all things considered, a pretty small marketplace.
Moreover, scientists debating amongst themselves is one thing for chemistry and quite another for Psychology or Anthropology or Public Health - fields that borrow credibility from the self-evident power of the scientific method to do history or philosophy or policy making.
- badlucklottery 3y ago> the only people with clearance to debate climate science are climate scientists, which is, all things considered, a pretty small marketplace. Like most highly specialized fields, getting 100% current on the state of the art will likely take full immersion in the field and years of dedicated study. You just don't get a lot of people who spend years doing the work of becoming a PhD and don't actually, you know, get their PhD. I'm sure they exist but they're understandably going to be super rare compared to jokers who read a couple papers (if that) and decide they know "the truth".
- IceHegel 3y agoA PhD, like all degrees, is just a piece of paper. This piece of paper doesn't mean you'll say true things or do good science, it's just a shortcut way of letting people know "I've spent a lot of time on this." As for who know best, I'm always skeptical of whoever is less curious, and that usually depends more on the person than the education level.