Trust the "Experts"

Author: ADreamOfLiberty

Posts

Total: 91
#61
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
One of the reasons why Kamala lost is because the left was shamed into thinking it had no right to question the hundreds of "experts" that predicted a Kamala victory. Also that they were not allowed to question how Harris was selected by "experts." Also, the left was not allowed to question the hundreds of "expert" economists that got inflation wrong.

Keep doing the same thing over and over. It means change will be near impossible.

we listen to our doctors and to consensus scientists.
First off, consensus isn't science, it's a vibe.

Secondly, because EVERY practicing "expert" doctor carries malpractice insurance, it only hurts yourself if you trust your "expert" doctor enough to never look for a second opinion.
#62
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,538
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
“Inject this vaccine, or you lose your job— because I trust the experts. Having ordered that, I fully realize that the experts, and I, myself are fallible human beings, too,” said no one ever.
#63
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,016
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Whats your basis of authority if you don't trust doctors and consensus scientists? Like the republican party, you r good at criticizing but not finding finding credible alternatives 
#64
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
My stance is, and has always been, that the alternative to blindly trusting authority figures is for you to do your own research and study the basics of the science, which requires NO expertise, before blindly trusting anyone.

Science and repeatable outcomes are rooted in universal principles that require no specialized expertise to grasp, as they rely on observable, measurable, and reproducible phenomena. A basic high school understanding of the scientific method—forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, collecting data, and drawing conclusions—is sufficient to recognize whether an experiment is repeatable or not. Repeatability simply means that if the same steps are followed under the same conditions, the results should be consistent. This doesn’t require "an expert," only clarity in the experimental procedure and transparency in the results. Anyone with basic scientific literacy can assess whether an experiment is well-documented without bias and whether its outcomes can be tested again by others without specialized knowledge. If the results of a study can only be understood or verified by an expert, then the study's credibility becomes highly suspect, as real science relies on universal accessibility and verification.

Like the republican party, you r good at criticizing
You really need to look past the false dichotomy of artificially manufactured political parties if you want to understand the real world.
#65
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,553
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Like the republican party, you r good at criticizing but not finding finding credible alternatives
The alternative is to invent bunch of conspiracy theories and pretend they are as likely true as actual scientific studies.

At least thats what MAGA did so far.
#66
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
You cannot be an educated individual without trusting what others have said,
Wrong.

You cannot be an educated individual without questioning what others have said
It's not an either/or.

To be educated requires that you learn. To learn requires that you accept. To accept requires that you... Trust. Questioning an authority without the willingness to at some point accept what they tell you is not a rational exercise, it's a childish game of gotcha.

Now sure, you're probably thinking of examples where you can teach yourself something without having to accept a word anyone else tells you but that only brings me back to everything I just said that you ignored; there is no way you can live your life like that, and you know you never have so stop being so dishonest.

It really speaks to the monumental lack of critical thinking the MAGA movement cultivates that you and apparently every other MAGA lunitic here doesn't understand the difference between accepting what someone tells you as true because Occam's razor dictates that as the rational response, and blind acceptance of anything told to you by anyone who purports to be an expert. 
#67
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
My stance is, and has always been, that the alternative to blindly trusting authority figures is for you to do your own research
Please explain how you conduct this research without trusting what anyone else has told you
#68
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Have you ever done a high school lab?
#69
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,553
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
Please explain how you conduct this research without trusting what anyone else has told you
Its done by magic.
#70
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,574
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Don't forget that one of Gp's professors said that he was the dumbest student that he ever had. Oh wait, that was Trump's professor.
#71
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
"You can't question smart people that know a lot more about a subject than you do."
#72
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,016
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So a third graders understanding of science is just as good as doctors and consensus scientists? Yes even a third grader can understand the scientific method... so if by a third grader estimation the covid Vax isn't studied enough, the third grader shouldn't listen to the experts? Do you see why there's so much lunacy out there, with conspiracy theories that say the earth is flat for example? If the third grader can't understand it, it's OK to believe whatever feels best?
#73
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Have you ever done a high school lab?
#74
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,016
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
I have an honors degree in science from a competitive major university. So yes ive done labs and I'm way over educated 
#75
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
So you know it doesn't take an expert to follow steps and read a chart and draw your own conclusions.

They had the same studies charts and conclusions during Covid where a person with high school lab experience could read multiple charts and repeatable results about who was dying from Covid and conclude on their own that Covid was mostly a threat to the elderly and the obese and those with co-morbidities. They didn't have to wait for an "expert" to come out on MSNBC and tell you that. Or trust an "expert" that denied those results existed.
#76
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
consensus scientists? 
What's a consensus scientist? Is that like a celebrity scientist?

When you use the term "consensus scientist" as an argument, you should refocus the discussion on what really matters: evidence. Science is not based on the number of people who agree on a result but on reproducible data that withstands scrutiny from anyone. While scientific consensus can indicate the prevailing interpretation of evidence, it’s not the arbiter of truth, or a substitute for reading the results. Many of history’s greatest scientific advancements, from Galileo’s heliocentrism to Einstein’s relativity, came from non-consensus scientists challenging the status quo. Furthermore, consensus science has been wrong many times before—such as when ulcers were thought to be caused by stress rather than bacteria—proving that skepticism and testing are essential to scientific progress. The term "consensus scientist" is often used rhetorically to imply groupthink or to shut down debate, with terms like "settled science," but true science thrives on open questioning. History has shown that scientific claims must be backed by clear, repeatable evidence, not appeals to authority or popularity. In the end, it’s the results and their reproducibility that define science, not labels or consensus.

A.I.
#77
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,016
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Where on earth did you get evidence that the covid Vax was bad? There r claims that the Vax causes heart swelling but the odds r super low and the odds of heart swelling r way higher for patients who get covid. Ive done lots of fact checks like this when idiotic claims r made by anti vaxers and using credible sources I see they r mistaken. The best I can surmise is that you all r too incompetent to interpret science and the main point is that you don't know how to find or use credible sources of info
#78
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Where on earth did you get evidence that the covid Vax was bad

I never said it was bad. I always said it was untested. And you shouldn't support an authoritarian government that forces you to take an untested drug from a company that has lawsuit immunity.
#79
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Your focus on 'credible sources' and fact-checks misses the main point: even if current data shows low risks, long-term safety cannot be confirmed without the time to study those effects. This isn't about being 'anti-vax' or 'anti-experts'; it's about standing against coercion and ensuring public health measures are implemented transparently and responsibly. Resorting to insults like calling others 'incompetent' doesn't strengthen your argument.... It just distracts from the valid concerns people have about trust in government-appointed "experts," transparency, accountability, and the freedom to make informed choices about their own health decisions.

I also worry about the dangerous precedent this sets. When a government is allowed to mandate the use of any medical treatment—particularly one that is newly developed and lacks long-term testing—it opens the door to much worse possibilities in the future. Today, it might be a vaccine with broad public support; tomorrow, it could be a more invasive or experimental treatment with far-reaching consequences. History shows that unchecked government power often expands, and once we allow a mandate like this, it becomes harder to draw the line when future policies are introduced. Imagine mandatory brain chips installed by a company with lawsuit immunity. Supporting sweeping mandates without the necessary critical scrutiny risks normalizing authoritarian measures like that, which absolutely will have dire implications for personal freedom and public trust and safety.

#80
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,016
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
it's fair to say the shot should be voluntary. but it's still stupid not to take it. the odds of dying from the disease for the average person was 2 in a thousand. that means for every thousand people, two were going to die. that's why hospitals were overflowing with dead bodies and such. the odds of dying after the shot, were next to zero statistically. now, it's true that there could have been a longer period to study the effects on the population... but when pandemics happen, it's rare to have the chance to study the effects long term. that's happened before, too. it's also a pro vax point that the development of the vaccine took many years, if you count the preparatory years before the pandemic. (it wasn't just thrown together like anti vaxers claim) and finally, the point that we use credible sources of authority and ya'll do not... if credible sources say it's safe, then it probably is. they know the science better than we do. 
if the odds of dying from the disease was way higher, and spreading it far more likely, I wouldn't even say it should be voluntary. I'd have argued to either take the shot or forfeit your citizenship, and get deported. 
#81
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
the odds of dying after the shot, were next to zero statistically.
We actually know now that was an unfounded claim . Especially for high risk groups like elderly and obese who trusted the experts when they implied they had a near 100 percent of surviving the Covid if they took the vax.

While the COVID-19 vaccine significantly reduced the risk of severe illness and death, especially in high-risk groups, it did not eliminate it. People in high-risk categories—such as the elderly, immunocompromised individuals, and those with underlying health conditions—could and did still succumb to COVID-19 even after being vaccinated. Studies consistently show that while vaccines mitigated risks, they are not perfect, and deaths among vaccinated high-risk populations have been well documented.

This idea that the odds of dying were "next to zero" oversimplifies the data. For high-risk groups, the vaccine reduced the likelihood of severe outcomes somewhat, but did not remove the risk entirely. Additionally, the presence of breakthrough infections and evolving variants further demonstrated that the vaccine, while a critical tool, was not an absolute shield against mortality. Science demands nuance, and ignoring the remaining risk misrepresents the reality faced by vulnerable populations.

A.I.
#82
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
if the odds of dying from the disease was way higher, and spreading it far more likely, I wouldn't even say it should be voluntary. I'd have argued to either take the shot or forfeit your citizenship, and get deported. 
The authoritarian take: "take the shot or forfeit their citizenship and be deported" is extreme and fundamentally flawed, especially given the facts about vaccine efficacy. While COVID-19 vaccines clinically reduced the risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death, they did not prevent the vast majority of people, around 99% over the past 5 years, from being exposed to the virus or its variants. In fact, studies have shown that vaccinated individuals could still easily contract and spread COVID-19, particularly as new variants emerged. These facts undermine the premise that mandating the vaccine would or could measurably stop the spread or eliminate risk to others.

Public health measures have to balance collective safety with individual rights. Threatening to strip someone of their citizenship and deport them for declining a vaccine crosses ethical and legal boundaries, violating principles of bodily autonomy and democratic freedom. Moreover, coercion breeds distrust, alienates populations, and weakens public health efforts. A more effective approach focuses on education and transparency to encourage voluntary participation, rather than enforcing punitive and authoritarian measures that undermine trust in both the government and public health institutions.

Ultimately, your argument fails to admit the limitations of the vaccine in preventing exposure and instead promotes an authoritarian overreach that disregards individual rights and the nuances of public health science. To what end?

A.I.
#83
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 395
Posts: 1,784
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I think this is also a point I refuted you on. You don't trust experts any further than evidence itself. The source is the actual evidence. Not any links, citations, what somebody said or written.
#84
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 395
Posts: 1,784
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@TwoMan
You trust the evidence itself which connects directly to your senses .
#85
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 395
Posts: 1,784
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Moozer325
How do you know what people know more than you is true?
Is it just because they explain with a lot of words?

Is it because they can show you what they're talking about it and you can observe the verification?
#86
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Mall
It's because they have spent their whole life studying a topic, and are widely recognized as an expert in that field. When I trust the experts, I'm not talking about media personalities and other news sources, I'm talking about the scientists who actually run these studies, and do the field work.
#87
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Please explain how you conduct this research without trusting what anyone else has told you
Have you ever done a high school lab?
Uh yeah. So if that's your answer, that "researching" means "doing the experiment yourself" then we're back to my original post where I pointed out that it is a practical impossibility for anyone to live their life that way, which also means you do not live your life that way, thereby highlighting your dishonesty.

It also disregards the fact that simply doing an experiment doesn't mean you understand all the variables and readings that may follow from that experiment. What would probably cure that is years of experience in that particular field, further making my point.

The question isn't whether you should trust, it's who you should trust and at what point does your skepticism warrant withholding that trust. The conversation is far more complex that the cartoonish strawman you and your cohorts here love to throw at the rest of us who think like normal people.
#88
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
How do you know what people know more than you is true?
Is it just because they explain with a lot of words?
It's because we have lives to live and can't sit around becoming an expert ourselves in every field everytime someone tells us something, therefore the solution is to apply Occam's razor; is it more likely that someone who has worked in a field their entire life is correct or incorrect when they are speaking to that field? Does this person have a reason to lie? Etc.

We trust experts as a generalization because we recognize that experience > non-experience. It's not blind, it's not unquestionable, it's not infallible. It's a basic application of critical thinking.
#89
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Back in 2016 when I was asked why Donald Trump concerned me so much I answered; out of the many many reasons to be concerned about him, my greatest concern is that he's a conspiracy theorist. Why is this so troubling? Because the conspiracist mindset is extremely dangerous as it has a tenancy, especially when being pushed by the most powerful man on the planet, to spread like cancer.

This whole thread is perfect example of this.
#90
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Uh yeah. So if that's your answer, that "researching" means "doing the experiment yourself"
Wanna take a second guess since you are all into the "guessing game" on this site?

it's who you should trust
And you have said before that you trust the MSM. They said the people love Kamala. They said crime, immigration, and the economy is not something the people really care about. They said Biden was super cogent and just wanted to let Kamala get her turn when he dropped out. They said Trump was worse than Hitler.

None of that was true, and Biden's smiling face today tells you everything you need to know about the deep state subverting democracy by pulling the donors out from under Biden. The simple fact is: you lack the ability to decide who to trust. That's actually worse than ignorance. That's a cognitive disorder.