4 ms·
>If the CEO of a gambling company said, "Gambling is good." Do you think that would be more or less effective propaganda that if the CEO paid someone else, let'
by robot_no_421 3y ago
>If the CEO of a gambling company said, "Gambling is good." Do you think that would be more or less effective propaganda that if the CEO paid someone else, let's say someone in a white lab coat, to say the same?
Difference is that a the guy in the lab coat has to conduct experiments on it, get them peer reviewed, publish a paper on it, and lay out all the assumptions and methodologies before it's actually "science". So it's not as simple as getting a guy in a lab coat to say it. Especially when all the other guys in lab coats are saying "that guy is lying and his methodology is garbage".
- tetrep 3y agoAnd that's why everyone knows there's no relationship between autism and vaccines? I think you're underestimating the ability for people to abuse trust, i.e. lie. You can't say "trust scientist A but not scientist B" unless you've got some way to judge them. Which we don't as we're the ignorant laymen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccines_and_autism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccines_and_autism edit: Global warming would have been a better example. You can point to scientists on "both sides" that each say the other is wrong. No amount of "blindly trust scientists" makes it better.