Thoughts on this paper? The overestimation of the uneducated when disagreeing with actual experts.

[Behold]

Overconfidence and Opposition to Scientific Consensus - NeuroLogica Blog

Often times you’ll find people who reject the wisdom of experts. They fool themselves into thinking they are wise, but they are fools. Any thoughts?

Perhaps they are fools, if they reject an expert's opinion and this opinion could have kept them from suffering, or dying.

On the other hand, a 2nd opinion is a wise investment indeed.

 

[bbyrd009]

“If your views on a scientific topic contrast with the consensus of scientific opinion, that should give you great pause…” im kinda struggling to perceive an example of “the consensus of scientific opinion” that is relevant to irl…anybody?

i mean idk, but i read where the doc who suggested that hand washing reduces the spread of infection was widely vilified by other doctors, and i guess even defrocked and put in a sanitarium or something?

 

[Grailhunter]

Consider this;
EVs: Are they really more efficient?
I completely agree however that Pres. Biden's characterization of his "inflation reduction act" was pure propaganda as we are in the process of finding out (my apologies Mr. President). On balance, however, while there are risks involved in driving an electric car, there are considerable risks associated with driving around with a tank full of potentially explosive liquid in your vehicle as well, as we regularly do with a gasoline powered car. My hunch is that it's a wash, but if you have numbers that prove otherwise I would love to see them. Btw, I am aware of a mature technology that will have an enormously beneficial impact on the level of CO2 emissions once it has a widespread build out if you are curious to know about it.

You know electric cars are a scam because of the effort made to cover up the facts.
Number one....Safety, most charging stations are in big cities. Most of your most dangerous gangs are in big cities. A full charge can take up to an hour at a charging station. From a regular 110 plugin 8 to 12 hours. None are manned and some are in parking lots. A woman and her children are sitting ducks for criminals during this time.

Number two, Range---On the average---200 miles give or take 50 miles which makes them impractical for long trips....odds are you will not run into too many charging stations on a out of town long trip, so you are back to 110 receptacles that will allow you to charge and still 8-12 hours. Best for small rural towns and staying in town and charging at home. If you are only driving short distances the cost saving between gas and electric will not pay for the expense of an electric car. Driving small light electric cars in the winter snow does not work well. And the heater and A/C reduces their range significantly.

Number three, Safety---Electric car batteries have been exploding and causing fires. Parking them in your garage can be a hazard to your home. They can catch fire while you are driving them. Incidents per number of electric cars as opposed to gas cars are much higher.

Number four, Safety---It is relative, but small light cars offer less protection in accidents. Small light cars in bad weather.

Number five, Cost---The average electric car cost $66,000 dollars...give or take.

Number six, Car insurance for electric cars are about 50% more than comparable gas cars.

Number seven---Repair cost after the warranty expires is around 50% higher than comparable gas cars.

Still, electric cars are the wave of the future....but they are kinda getting the cart before the horse. It will be some time before battery technology advances to afford performance and safety and the convenience of charging stations expand. One solution is standardizing car batteries and make them easy to swap out at gas stations. And then there are people around the car so not so prone to criminal attacks.

 

[Matthias]

I have seen examples of someone doing heart surgery who I wouldn't let treat my dog.

Is the Medical Board that issued them licenses to practice medicine aware of them?

 

[Skovand1075]

If I did not know any better I would have swore this was a satirical thread.

 

[bbyrd009]

If I did not know any better I would have swore this was a satirical thread.

knowledge is a funny thing, huh

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't mean to be mean grailhunter, but your posts tend to wander off down rabbit holes, presenting much disorganized information that doesn't culminate in a point . It is hard to discern what you are trying to say.

Exactly on point and the truth.
Sorry if you cannot handle it.

 

[RLT63]

Is the Medical Board that issued them licenses to practice medicine aware of them?

The numerous lawsuits he incurred make me question the Medical Board's decision to issue a license. But he just moved to another city and opened up an office there. Most of the lawsuits are for performing unnecessary procedures, like putting stents or pacemakers in when they weren't needed. He's not the first we had a general surgeon who had no clue what he was doing. People had to go somewhere else to correct the surgeries he botched. He was Chief of Staff at one point.

 

[Matthias]

The numerous lawsuits he incurred make me question the Medical Board's decision to issue a license. But he just moved to another city and opened up an office there. Most of the lawsuits are for performing unnecessary procedures, like putting stents or pacemakers in when they weren't needed.

It reminds me of an old episode of a television program called Quincy. Maybe you remember it. Jack Klugman played the role of Dr. Quincy, Medical Examiner.

There are great medical practitioners, good medical practitioners, mediocre practitioners, poor medical practitioners, incompetent medical practitioners and frauds.

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

I have seen examples of someone doing heart surgery who I wouldn't let treat my dog.

Sadly,you're not alone. In one case that surgeon worked at John Hopkins.
The ''number 1'' hospital in America. Why #1? Not patient care. RESEARCH!
Including patient cases.

 

[RLT63]

Perhaps they are fools, if they reject an expert's opinion and this opinion could have kept them from suffering, or dying.

On the other hand, a 2nd opinion is a wise investment indeed.

Do you accept the experts' opinion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? That all life evolved from a single common ancestor? That life came from non-life (abiogenesis) ?

 

[Skovand1075]

Sadly,you're not alone. In one case that surgeon worked at John Hopkins.
The ''number 1'' hospital in America. Why #1? Not patient care. RESEARCH!
Including patient cases.

It reminds me of an old episode of a television program called Quincy. Maybe you remember it. Jack Klugman played the role of Dr. Quincy, Medical Examiner.

There are great medical practitioners, good medical practitioners, mediocre practitioners, poor medical practitioners, incompetent medical practitioners and frauds.

That’s why it’s important to look at the general consensuses.

for example we have almost 99.99% of scientists agreeing on one thing and out of eight million a few thousand disagreeing. When you look at the big picture you don’t have to worry about the oddballs.

 

[Skovand1075]

Do you accept the experts' opinion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? That all live evolved from a single common ancestor? That life came from non-life (abiogenesis) ?

I definitely do.

a wonderful source for evolution creationism is Biologos.


The BioLogos Forum

Some of the other the other threads are already discussing that issue here as well.

 

[RLT63]

That’s why it’s important to look at the general consensuses.

for example we have almost 99.99% of scientists agreeing on one thing and out of eight million a few thousand disagreeing. When you look at the big picture you don’t have to worry about the oddballs.

Science was never supposed to be based on the consensus. It is not a majority rule practice. It is supposed to be based on evidence.

 

[marks]

Science was never supposed to be based on the consensus. It is not a majority rule practice. It is supposed to be based on evidence.

Anything that disagrees with the Scriptures is at best "so-called science", and is not true, and may simply represent how greedily the ungodly take hold of a lie.

Much love!

 

[atpollard]

Often times you’ll find people who reject the wisdom of experts. They fool themselves into thinking they are wise, but they are fools. Any thoughts?

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men. For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men.

But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. - Titus 1​

That was my thought.
Why do you revel in your imagined superiority and in proclaiming all who disagree with you as "fools"?

 

[marks]

Do you accept the experts' opinion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? That all live evolved from a single common ancestor? That life came from non-life (abiogenesis) ?

This shows how evolutionary science is a complete lie. No one has ever observed abiogenesis. No one, ever. This is not science, it's a faith system in rebellion to God.

No one has ever observed species changing to another species. EVER.

There is no experiment that can be performed to show abiogenesis. Evolution is not a "scientific theory", though it is called that by it's proponents. Are they SO scientifically illiterate that they don't understand what their own terminology means? Or is it a spiritual darkness over those who reject the truth? And those who have been confuse by them?

Why do the scientists lie? These so-called experts?

I can only think of one reason. Deception. Deceiving, and being deceived.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

That’s why it’s important to look at the general consensuses.

for example we have almost 99.99% of scientists agreeing on one thing and out of eight million a few thousand disagreeing. When you look at the big picture you don’t have to worry about the oddballs.

Always go with the majority. Isn’t that what Jesus said?

 

[Skovand1075]

Science was never supposed to be based on the consensus. It is not a majority rule practice. It is supposed to be based on evidence.

It is. The scientific consensus means it’s what the overwhelming majority of the experts all landed on independently as being the best interpretation of the data.

 

[Skovand1075]

Always go with the majority. Isn’t that what Jesus said?

Can you show me where Jesus talked about scientific consensus? Or are you referring to the majority of people seeking fruit of the flesh? I’m certain you’re not so foolish to confuse the difference. But then again, that’s what this posts link was all about.