Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?

[Zumbruk]

Gadgetmac said:

If your belief in something stems from what you've gleaned from people entirely unqualified to pontificate on the matter when evidence is available from those who are qualified and with expertise in the field or subject then that just makes you an idiot.

Yep. This.

[Al Gorithum]

Zumbruk said:

Gadgetmac said:

If your belief in something stems from what you've gleaned from people entirely unqualified to pontificate on the matter when evidence is available from those who are qualified and with expertise in the field or subject then that just makes you an idiot.

Yep. This.

True. But what's the word they use to describe people who believe everything the Govt tells them (assuming everyone who doesn't believe the TC is one)?

[andyeds1234]

Al Gorithum said:

Zumbruk said:

Gadgetmac said:

If your belief in something stems from what you've gleaned from people entirely unqualified to pontificate on the matter when evidence is available from those who are qualified and with expertise in the field or subject then that just makes you an idiot.

Yep. This.

True. But what's the word they use to describe people who believe everything the Govt tells them (assuming everyone who doesn't believe the TC is one)?

Dunno, what is the word?
Is there anyone who believes everything tHe GoveRnMent tells them?
Or are we to believe that ALL facts come from the government.
It’s hard to keep up TBH.

Edited by andyeds1234 on Thursday 16th March 15:22

[Castrol for a knave]

Zumbruk said:

Gadgetmac said:

If your belief in something stems from what you've gleaned from people entirely unqualified to pontificate on the matter when evidence is available from those who are qualified and with expertise in the field or subject then that just makes you an idiot.

Yep. This.

Said this numerous times, CT'rs always seem to feel think thy know as much if not more than a virologist, bio-chemist, physicist etc but never seem to claim they can fly an Airbus based on several hours watching Youtube in a dimly lit bedroom.

[Kawasicki]

Zumbruk said:

Gadgetmac said:

If your belief in something stems from what you've gleaned from people entirely unqualified to pontificate on the matter when evidence is available from those who are qualified and with expertise in the field or subject then that just makes you an idiot.

Yep. This.

100% agree, Though... who decides what "qualified" means?

[andyeds1234]

Kawasicki said:

Zumbruk said:

Gadgetmac said:

If your belief in something stems from what you've gleaned from people entirely unqualified to pontificate on the matter when evidence is available from those who are qualified and with expertise in the field or subject then that just makes you an idiot.

Yep. This.

100% agree, Though... who decides what "qualified" means?

Err, qualifications do.
You know, like recognised exams passed, years of experience etc etc.
Not sitting on the toilet, googling.
It’s not difficult.

[LF5335]

Zumbruk said:

Gadgetmac said:

If your belief in something stems from what you've gleaned from people entirely unqualified to pontificate on the matter when evidence is available from those who are qualified and with expertise in the field or subject then that just makes you an idiot.

Yep. This.

Another “yep, this’” from me

[Zumbruk]

andyeds1234 said:

Kawasicki said:

Zumbruk said:

Gadgetmac said:

If your belief in something stems from what you've gleaned from people entirely unqualified to pontificate on the matter when evidence is available from those who are qualified and with expertise in the field or subject then that just makes you an idiot.

Yep. This.

100% agree, Though... who decides what "qualified" means?

Err, qualifications do.
You know, like recognised exams passed, years of experience etc etc.
Not sitting on the toilet, googling.
It’s not difficult.

I did a list for anti-vaxxers. Two ticks while I find it.

---

Dear antivaxxer,

Please go away and study this lot. It should take you somewhere around 7 years (it did me). I'll wait.

Then we can talk.

--- 'A' Levels

https://www.aqa.org.uk/resources/science/as-and-a-...

https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/science/as-and-a-l...

https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/mathematics/a-leve...

--- First Degree

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/ug/courses/life-s...

--- Masters Degree

Virology

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/pg/medicine/molec...

Or epidemiology

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/pg/medicine/epide...

[LF5335]

andyeds1234 said:

Err, qualifications do.
You know, like recognised exams passed, years of experience etc etc.
Not sitting on the toilet, googling.
It’s not difficult.

That’s exactly what I was thinking as I read the ridiculous comment that you replied to.

[Zumbruk]

Al Gorithum said:

Zumbruk said:

Gadgetmac said:

If your belief in something stems from what you've gleaned from people entirely unqualified to pontificate on the matter when evidence is available from those who are qualified and with expertise in the field or subject then that just makes you an idiot.

Yep. This.

True. But what's the word they use to describe people who believe everything the Govt tells them (assuming everyone who doesn't believe the TC is one)?

Who cares what word they use? They're wrong.

[Al Gorithum]

Maybe it's easier for some folk to understand who *isn't* qualified to determine what Qualified means.

People such as Russel Brand, Alex Jones, David Icke, and the plethora of other Youtube idiots.

[andyeds1234]

Zumbruk said:

andyeds1234 said:

Kawasicki said:

Zumbruk said:

Gadgetmac said:

If your belief in something stems from what you've gleaned from people entirely unqualified to pontificate on the matter when evidence is available from those who are qualified and with expertise in the field or subject then that just makes you an idiot.

Yep. This.

100% agree, Though... who decides what "qualified" means?

Err, qualifications do.
You know, like recognised exams passed, years of experience etc etc.
Not sitting on the toilet, googling.
It’s not difficult.

I did a list for anti-vaxxers. Two ticks while I find it.

---

Dear antivaxxer,

Please go away and study this lot. It should take you somewhere around 7 years (it did me). I'll wait.

Then we can talk.

--- 'A' Levels

https://www.aqa.org.uk/resources/science/as-and-a-...

https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/science/as-and-a-l...

https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/mathematics/a-leve...

--- First Degree

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/ug/courses/life-s...

--- Masters Degree

Virology

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/pg/medicine/molec...

Or epidemiology

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/pg/medicine/epide...

fk that!
7 years, just to realise that I don’t know even a tiny percentage of the subject that I thought I was an expert on before I started!?!?
Mugs game!

[captain_cynic]

Zumbruk said:

I did a list for anti-vaxxers. Two ticks while I find it.

---

Dear antivaxxer,

Please go away and study this lot. It should take you somewhere around 7 years (it did me). I'll wait.

Then we can talk.

--- 'A' Levels

https://www.aqa.org.uk/resources/science/as-and-a-...

https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/science/as-and-a-l...

https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/mathematics/a-leve...

--- First Degree

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/ug/courses/life-s...

--- Masters Degree

Virology

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/pg/medicine/molec...

Or epidemiology

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/pg/medicine/epide...

Excellent post.

I fully expect the resident CTers to utterly ignore it as they've DoNe ThEiR rEsEaRcH.

[Kawasicki]

andyeds1234 said:

Kawasicki said:

Zumbruk said:

Gadgetmac said:

If your belief in something stems from what you've gleaned from people entirely unqualified to pontificate on the matter when evidence is available from those who are qualified and with expertise in the field or subject then that just makes you an idiot.

Yep. This.

100% agree, Though... who decides what "qualified" means?

Err, qualifications do.
You know, like recognised exams passed, years of experience etc etc.
Not sitting on the toilet, googling.
It’s not difficult.

What happens when two highly qualified scientists make diametrically opposing interpretations of the available data?
Which one do you listen to?

[Raccaccoonie]

You can't argue with stupid.

[simon_harris]

Raccaccoonie said:

You can't argue with stupid.

You can but generally they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!

[Kawasicki]

You are deluded if you trust scientists without DoiNg yOur oWn ReSeArCH.

Is it better to be...

A) Thick and Doubting/Questioning

or

B) Clever and Believing/Unquestioning.

Tough choice.... the best course of action is to be...

C) Clever and Doubting/Questioning



Simple example of how it's important to question.

Is glyphosate weedkiller cancerous?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2017/10...

From the Forbes article (which should also be subject to questioning)

"In the highly-charged and polarized climate surrounding questions involving public health and the environment, it is only too easy for advocates to gain support for their cause by appealing to public concern. Often this concern relates to trace levels of a chemical in our food, water, or environment. But the two sides in the debate are not equal. Evidence, no matter how weak or questionable, of a positive association is readily accepted as pointing to a serious threat. In contrast, even when there is superior evidence that calls into question the existence of threat, this simply does not have the same power to persuade concerned citizens.

A closely related point is that the prevailing view of conflicts-of-interest is one-sided and naïve and represents a major obstacle to achieving rationality in the public discussion of hotly contested questions like glyphosate. To be sure, industry has its clear interests, and, of course, these should be taken into account. In fact, the awareness of industry interests is, by now, built into our thinking. Things are quite different when it comes to seeing the interests at work on the other side. Given that deliberations on these matters involve human beings, we need to take it as axiomatic that all parties may be influenced by financial considerations – or equally importantly -- by ideological and professional agendas. We delude ourselves if we think that environmental activists and allied scientists (including academic and government researchers) engaged in these questions are free of their own interests."

[Al Gorithum]

Kawasicki said:

You are deluded if you trust scientists without DoiNg yOur oWn ReSeArCH.

Is it better to be...

A) Thick and Doubting/Questioning

or

B) Clever and Believing/Unquestioning.

Tough choice.... the best course of action is to be...

C) Clever and Doubting/Questioning



Simple example of how it's important to question.

Is glyphosate weedkiller cancerous?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2017/10...

From the Forbes article (which should also be subject to questioning)

"In the highly-charged and polarized climate surrounding questions involving public health and the environment, it is only too easy for advocates to gain support for their cause by appealing to public concern. Often this concern relates to trace levels of a chemical in our food, water, or environment. But the two sides in the debate are not equal. Evidence, no matter how weak or questionable, of a positive association is readily accepted as pointing to a serious threat. In contrast, even when there is superior evidence that calls into question the existence of threat, this simply does not have the same power to persuade concerned citizens.

A closely related point is that the prevailing view of conflicts-of-interest is one-sided and naïve and represents a major obstacle to achieving rationality in the public discussion of hotly contested questions like glyphosate. To be sure, industry has its clear interests, and, of course, these should be taken into account. In fact, the awareness of industry interests is, by now, built into our thinking. Things are quite different when it comes to seeing the interests at work on the other side. Given that deliberations on these matters involve human beings, we need to take it as axiomatic that all parties may be influenced by financial considerations – or equally importantly -- by ideological and professional agendas. We delude ourselves if we think that environmental activists and allied scientists (including academic and government researchers) engaged in these questions are free of their own interests."

Depends on what DoiNg yOur oWn ReSeArCH consists of.

[LF5335]

Kawasicki said:

What happens when two highly qualified scientists make diametrically opposing interpretations of the available data?
Which one do you listen to?

Feel free to give us an example.

Here’s my retort, before you even provide your initial reply.

The “highly qualified scientist” you’ve chosen to support your position, isn’t actually as highly qualified as you think, it’s even arguable whether they’re a scientist. They are certainly not a scientist in the area you need them to be to be able to make a viable argument. Also, there are literally dozens, probably hundreds of globally renowned experts in this specific area who hold the opposite (and the accepted correct) view that you are choosing to ignore to pretend it’s a 1 vs 1 debate.

Don’t let my reply put you off providing your example though.

[Zumbruk]

Kawasicki said:

What happens when two highly qualified scientists make diametrically opposing interpretations of the available data?
Which one do you listen to?

You *listen* to both of them.