>"do you want chemicals in your water" I know you're deriding this as an invalid, small-brain appeal, but this is actually sound. It's like that meme with the

>"do you want chemicals in your water" I know you're deriding this as an invalid, small-brain appeal, but this is actually sound. It's like that meme with the bell curve of the layperson, the midwit, and the genius. The layperson and the genius know that adding these chemicals to the water isn't worth the risk, they'll just articulate it in different ways. They might argue that adding "chemicals in your water" is not Lindy, that there's higher order unknown unknowns and risks that the layperson and the genius would rather not take. That the upsides simply aren't worth it versus the downsides. Contrast that with the midwit who will appeal to bureaucrat-scholar "experts" and their myopic scientific studies. In this way, the sacraments of Scientism make it easy to fool the midwit, especially when midwit media apparatuses will dismiss the opposition per ad hominem as an inferior "Them" to the midwit's superior "Us". But try convincing a midwit of that without a peer-review study!