3 ms·

I'm not saying experts are perfect. I'm not saying they don't get stuff wrong. It's simply that someone educated in a matter is less likely to be wrong in their

I'm not saying experts are perfect. I'm not saying they don't get stuff wrong. It's simply that someone educated in a matter is less likely to be wrong in their area of expertise than a random person off the street who knows nothing about that field. > Representative democracy where it actually did as promised, would be that the elected people would do what the ones who elected them wants. Different people want different things. Some people want to go to the moon. Some people don't. Who should get their way? Surely that decision should be made by someone who knows that they're talking about as opposed to randoms like us? Please also address this from my previous comment: > My entire point is most people know nothing about science, why should they be making these decisions? Many people believe Covid-19 is a hoax and that the earth is flat and that vaccines cause autism, should we really be taking their opinions on matters they don't know about seriously?

redeeman 3y ago
> Different people want different things. Some people want to go to the moon. Some people don't. Who should get their way? Surely that decision should be made by someone who knows that they're talking about as opposed to randoms like us? Why is one right and another wrong? this smells to me a bit like elitism. Are things only valid if they further some science goal? If the overwhelming majority of the population(example) thinks mining an asteroid should be done rather than going to the moon, or study some kind of gas cloud, or take pictures of some object, why is that wrong? even if what the "experts" say would lead to generating more invention/understanding of the universe? > Please also address this from my previous comment: When people were told the earth is flat, they knew NOTHING about it, it was the leading experts at the time. Why shouldnt they be making the DECISIONS? the scientists can tell the people what they want to do, and why, and what they expect it will give back as a result, and then the PEOPLE, the ones who actually pay the bills and fund the adventures of these academics, can get to decide what to do? And to be sure, I fully support that any scientist goes and does pretty much whatever he/she wants, with their own money or whomever they can get to fund it, but dont they care to claim to have some divine right to DECIDE what public money MUST be spent on

redeeman 3y ago

> Different people want different things. Some people want to go to the moon. Some people don't. Who should get their way? Surely that decision should be made by someone who knows that they're talking about as opposed to randoms like us? Why is one right and another wrong? this smells to me a bit like elitism. Are things only valid if they further some science goal? If the overwhelming majority of the population(example) thinks mining an asteroid should be done rather than going to the moon, or study some kind of gas cloud, or take pictures of some object, why is that wrong? even if what the "experts" say would lead to generating more invention/understanding of the universe? > Please also address this from my previous comment: When people were told the earth is flat, they knew NOTHING about it, it was the leading experts at the time. Why shouldnt they be making the DECISIONS? the scientists can tell the people what they want to do, and why, and what they expect it will give back as a result, and then the PEOPLE, the ones who actually pay the bills and fund the adventures of these academics, can get to decide what to do? And to be sure, I fully support that any scientist goes and does pretty much whatever he/she wants, with their own money or whomever they can get to fund it, but dont they care to claim to have some divine right to DECIDE what public money MUST be spent on