As one who often cites the best information available on political issues, I'd like to add that this is often going to be wrong. It turns out, often wrong:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1998644,00.html
Now, the easy alternative is to ignore all experts. Which is, of course, madness.
The hard alternative is to be educated. To know enough to discern the quality of the information available and discern not only what is most likely to be right but what is the certainty with which it is right.
The third, and by far the worst, alternative is to ignore that which you disagree with. To listen only to those who agree with you. This is groupthink. Every time people don't do the hard work and take the short cut it reinforces that groupthink is fine; that it is the norm. And the ethic of hard work - of actually thinking - slips away. Do it enough and some day you will not be able to tell the difference.
This final state is the most pathetic state of all.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Experts: often wrong
Experts: often wrongFollow
I've been saying this for years, well at least every time some liberal starts talking about all the experts that believe humans can control global temperatures.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
I've been saying this for years, well at least every time some liberal starts talking about all the experts that believe humans can control global temperatures.
The opening paragraph of that is so vague that it's hard to take the rest of it seriously. "Economists have found that all studies published in economics journals are likely to be wrong" -- what does that even mean? Medical journals are places where the frontiers of medicine are explored so should I be upset if findings get questioned or even shown wrong? Does that have any meaningful effect on my doctor saying my strep culture came back positive? Are newspaper articles making major factual errors or minor, meaningless ones (and are they including every locally written penny-saver in that study or only major publications)?
I suppose the answer is to accumulate the most information on a subject and, as you say, discern what's useful and what isn't, what has the most support and evidence and what has the least, etc. Takes more time than reading a single article but so it goes.
I suppose the answer is to accumulate the most information on a subject and, as you say, discern what's useful and what isn't, what has the most support and evidence and what has the least, etc. Takes more time than reading a single article but so it goes.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I'm pretty sure an expert wrote that article.
Love,
PunkFloyd
PunkFloyd
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
I've been saying this for years, well at least every time some liberal starts talking about all the experts that believe humans can control global temperatures.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. What proof do you have that he actually read the title? There's 3 words there, dammit!
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
I've been saying this for years, well at least every time some liberal starts talking about all the experts that believe humans can control global temperatures.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. What proof do you have that he actually read the title? There's 3 words there, dammit!
And some sort of punctuation. It seems to be twice as powerful as a standard period.
Bardalicious wrote:
It seems to be twice as powerful as a standard period.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
I've been saying this for years, well at least every time some liberal starts talking about all the experts that believe humans can control global temperatures.
The argument against being "Al Gore is a sex-crazed poodle therefore anthropomorphic climate change is impossible".
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
What an incredibly verbose way of saying that it's blatantly stupid to blindly trust someone else merely because you, for lack of motivation or capacity, are uneducated on a particular subject.
BrownDuck wrote:
What an incredibly verbose way of saying that it's blatantly stupid to blindly trust someone else merely because you, for lack of motivation or capacity, are uneducated on a particular subject.
Hello Self-Help industry.
#12gbaji,
Posted: Jun 30 2010 at 3:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Lol. Consensus on Global Warming anyone?
Jophiel wrote:
The opening paragraph of that is so vague that it's hard to take the rest of it seriously. "Economists have found that all studies published in economics journals are likely to be wrong" -- what does that even mean?
That reminds me of a joke about Paul Krugman: not only has he won a Nobel Prize in Economics, but he's successfully predicted 8 out of the last 5 recessions!
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
gbaji wrote:
Lol. Consensus on Global Warming anyone?
Not really. Location = square 1. So how about we just agree that dumping crap on the planet is bad in general?
Edited, Jun 30th 2010 3:57pm by Thanacus
gbaji wrote:
Lol. Consensus on Global Warming anyone?
This post is sweet, delicious irony.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Thanacus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Lol. Consensus on Global Warming anyone?
Not really. Location = square 1. So how about we just agree that dumping crap on the planet is bad in general?
Not really. Location = 4. We agrees that dumping crap on the planet is pervasive and necessary and rejects your claim that it is bad in any way. To refrain would lead to toxic levels of waste buildup and eventual death.
Feel free to try it if you're so inclined.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
I've been saying this for years, well at least every time some liberal starts talking about all the experts that believe humans can control global temperatures.
Creationism though,...science you can bet your paycheck on.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Thanacus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Lol. Consensus on Global Warming anyone?
Not really. Location = square 1. So how about we just agree that dumping crap on the planet is bad in general?
Not really. Location = 4. We agrees that dumping crap on the planet is pervasive and necessary and rejects your claim that it is bad in any way. To refrain would lead to toxic levels of waste buildup and eventual death.
Feel free to try it if you're so inclined.
Tried that once. Wasn't pretty, and I feel very sorry for the raccoon that stumbled into the resulting situation.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Thanacus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Lol. Consensus on Global Warming anyone?
Not really. Location = square 1. So how about we just agree that dumping crap on the planet is bad in general?
Not really. Location = 4. We agrees that dumping crap on the planet is pervasive and necessary and rejects your claim that it is bad in any way. To refrain would lead to toxic levels of waste buildup and eventual death.
Feel free to try it if you're so inclined.
The argument has never been (as I've heard it) to simply stop dumping crap on the planet and store it elsewhere, but merely to reduce the amount of crap generated in the first place. Win win, ya know?
BrownDuck wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Thanacus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Lol. Consensus on Global Warming anyone?
Not really. Location = square 1. So how about we just agree that dumping crap on the planet is bad in general?
Not really. Location = 4. We agrees that dumping crap on the planet is pervasive and necessary and rejects your claim that it is bad in any way. To refrain would lead to toxic levels of waste buildup and eventual death.
Feel free to try it if you're so inclined.
The argument has never been (as I've heard it) to simply stop dumping crap on the planet and store it elsewhere, but merely to reduce the amount of crap generated in the first place. Win win, ya know?
The majority of the crap generated on this planet is not man-made. Any reduction in the fraction of crap that is man-made would result in a negligible decrease in the overall volume of crap rendering the effort essentially meaningless.
My suggestion that Thanacus die does, however, address your concerns.
Also, whoosh.
BrownDuck wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Thanacus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Lol. Consensus on Global Warming anyone?
Not really. Location = 4. We agrees that dumping crap on the planet is pervasive and necessary and rejects your claim that it is bad in any way. To refrain would lead to toxic levels of waste buildup and eventual death.
Feel free to try it if you're so inclined.
ThePsychoticOne the Prohpet wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Feel free to try it if you're so inclined.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
The majority of the crap generated on this planet is not man-made.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
bsphil wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
The majority of the crap generated on this planet is not man-made.
Our whole planet is just ****.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Recent Visitors: 396
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (396)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Experts: often wrong
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC