Posted: Apr 21, 2019 12:17 pm
by Spearthrower
Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:
I see. What makes these contributors "actual scientists" as opposed to "pretend scientists"? I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who do not agree with your "actual scientists". Hence why I'm asking you if this is an impartial source.



You feel ill. You go to your doctor and after many examinations and tests, your doctor regretfully informs you that have a very dangerous disease which could prove fatal; but good news - there's a treatment available.

You decide to go for a 2nd opinion. That's reasonable. After all, the treatment is expensive, and even a doctor makes mistakes sometimes. The 2nd doctor does the same tests and confirms the original doctor's diagnosis.

Still skeptical, you decide to go to a 3rd doctor who then does tests, confirms the same diagnosis.

You keep going to more and more doctors, each confirming the same diagnosis.

99 doctors all perform a variety of tests and all arrive at the same independent conclusion.

Is it still reasonable to be skeptical? Or is it now denial?

Regardless, you go to the 100th doctor who tells you it's all a load of baloney and you will enjoy a long and healthy life.

Do you now believe the 100th doctor? Do you understand the value of consensus arrived at through independent evaluation? Or do you risk your life on the outlier?