Can we trust humans?
Note: I haven’t watched your video. I can’t watch video atm, but that’s the simple answer.
Of course we can’t trust the scientists. They’re hiding cures for cancer and trying to fool us into thinking that the Visitors aren’t our friends and that they’re actually lizards or something…
Take everything with a grain of salt. Simple as that. Just because a person is of world renown or is (insert title here) does not mean they cannot lie. If all(or a majority) scientist conclude that the Earth is a bagel does that make it so?
You didn’t watch the video, huh?
I will admit I did not. I was just making a simple statement.
Would it surprise you to know, the narrator of the video agrees?
No, but science has a method to deal with that. Which explains how we got past some of the incredibly popular, albeit wrong ideas held by religion and the people that follow.
csbrown, what exactly seem to be your problem? Scientists deal in suppositions and studies and it is not a matter of trust or fact but of the relevancy of study and research. Scientists build on the work of others and either prove or disprove a theorum as they go. So the question is silly.
I would hope so. Just because some is an “expert” does not mean you should trust them. That is a dangerous way of thinking.
Why do you assume I have a problem? I mean, we all have problems…My shoulder hurts, old sports injury. I’m a little hevier than I’d like, but I assume that’s not what your asking. So out with it.
Another person who didn’t watch the video, or at least didn’t take much from it.
We can trust a scientist as well as we can trust any other person.
Some people are honest and have integrity. Some do not. It requires knowledge of the person.
There are scientists who practice scientific methods with integrity. And there are those who have been credentialed by universities and scientific groups, who have elected to prostitute their opinions by taking government money to conduct staged “research” and produce a specific desired result.
Follow the money. If a scientist is paid by an outside group; does that group desire a specific result? Does that scientist welcome peer review and duplication? True, disinterested scientists do - it confirms their results, or shows flaws that the researcher can correct in subsequent work.
Charlatans do NOT welcome examination; do NOT stick to scientific method; interspace facts with emotional warnings of what might happen if their “predictions” are not heeded. These are not scientists; they are political activists in white coats.
I made the mistake of watching that bit of dreck…obviously it’s a pump for Glow Bull Warming.
CONSENSUS has NOTHING to do with science! Science is about PROVABLE FACTS - that is, hypotheses that have been carefully tested and proven or disproven.
CONSENSUS in Galileo’s time was that the sun revolved around the Earth. And it was enforced by law; by punishment to challenges - just as Glow Bull Warming is about to be.
Only proven or disproven hypotheses and controlled testing, are open to discussion. What fake-scientist intellectual prostitutes ASSERT is of NO consequence.
Can we trust humans?
Note: I have now watched your video now. It was a waste of my time. Did you think no one’s heard the arguments in that video before?
I watched only a short portion of it. Same stuff I’ve heard for years. As others have mentioned, scientists are humans. Humans make mistakes. Sometimes lots of humans make the same mistakes. And, then there’s pride. I would say a great number of humans manage to trip themselves up because of pride. I don’t trust scientists for the most part. I look at scientists such as Dookins (Dawkins) and de Grassi and despite the fact that both of these guys are brilliant, they’re also full of themselves and have deluded themselves to think they have all the answers. Therefore, they are idiots. Both of them. There are more.
So, to answer your original question, I view most scientists with healthy reserve until I have studied their positions properly.
If you had watched it all, you’d know that scientists don’t trust scientists. They know they are fallible and there is a method by which the work of those of poor ethics and character, poor method and procedure, or those that are just plain wrong is cast out. Science is built upon the work of those that have come before. You can’t go to the moon or cure disease, you can’t build microprocessors or transplant organs, you can’t bypass the spinal cord or create vaccines unless the work that is being built upon has managed to weed out the flaws of the humans that create the work.
Don’t trust the scientist, but understand that the process is the best method we’ve ever devised for advancing our technology.
I too saw a portion of it with its exaggerated claims of support by scientists and it ignoring the reality of facts. It starts with the premise that people believe that climate changes. Well that does not equate with believing that it is globul warming but an acknowledgement that weather has cycles and has for the length the planet has existed. In essence it is a strawman’s argument showing the complete dishonesty of the ones making the video.
A more concise question would be " does weather change" and that is the real deal and not the wording of a question with with an ulterior motive to illicit a certain response
The whole presentation was to validate Glow Ball Warming/Climate Change/Global Cooling through stressing apparent PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE, drawn through push-polling and statistical twisting. As well as CONSENSUS among “climate experts.”
What does that sound like? Hey, YOU! ALL these people, INCLUDING ALL THESE SCIENTISTS, BELIEVE that THE EARTH IS HEATING UP!
Unstated is that if you don’t agree, you’re an ignoramus, you’re defying the OPINION of “scientists” - and thus you’re ignorant and out of step and out of touch and just shaddup and let us Kewel Peeps and Smart People with Credentials, solve the problem FOR you rubes!
Consensus is not science. Consensus is agreement ON OPINION.
Opinion has no place in science. Only facts are addressed in science.
An asserted fact that cannot be tested, cannot be considered and is thus an opinion. Opinions can lead an investigator to formulate an hypothesis of possible facts; but the facts are either proven true, proven false, or proven inconclusive - in which case no facts were determined.
Computer models that cannot be tested, PowerPoint flip charts, screeds to create hysteria; and demands to de-industrialize to prevent a catastrophe that only “climate scientists” “believe” is coming…is not science.
It’s a dystopian political agenda…aimed to impoverish and probably starve out, the rubes who have been too successful for their betters’ liking.
I gotta tell ya, JustPassin, I was a bit confused over GLOW BALL warming. I kept wondering if I had missed some scientific breakthrough lately. Seriously, it took me a few minutes to realize what you were saying! LOL!
Actually, no. That’s why happens when evidence clashes with your beliefs. Something has to give. The same science the does work on the climate is the same science that has is working on fusion reactors, and carbon nanotubes, improving battery technology and how to artificially grow human skin for burn victims. The only difference between climate and these other fields is that climate science is more established and the body of work and evidence is much larger.
The problem for you and others here is that you deny that science, as an institution is moving in the right direction is because to deal with the reality is to have to reevaluate things that you have come to believe. Now, I understand how difficult that is, especially when people, like yourself deny established science and have conflated what they believe with how they see themselves, how they identify. To change you’re beliefs is to have to re-evaluate the ideas that you’ve internalized. So you’re not just changing your mind, you have to change how you self identify.
But I digress…I know that this will fall on (mostly) deaf ears, and that’s ok. Out there, in this lot is someone who hasn’t yet internalized their beliefs and the ideas I’m spreading here are clicking. They are re-evaluating the ideas and maybe they will understand how important it is to hold your ideas about the word separate from your ideology.