DavidSauls |
04-19-2020 10:17 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armus Patheticus
(Post 3577381)
I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to choose their beliefs based on wishes and convenience (as so many do) but there are sometimes valid reasons that some doubt scientific authorities. This is illustrated by my last encounter with epidemiology.
In 2005 my wife and I were working as gear sherpas for a couple of geologists in the Caribbean. Learning a lot from this experience, I became interested in the geology of one particular region back home, and studied it as a hobby for a few years. I recieved several research permits and grants to work in two caves owned by the State of Pennsylvania. Halfway through this project my permits were revoked due to the influence of USFWS policy that assumed, based on tons of science, that humans were spreading a deadly fungal disease between bat populations. But they weren't, and it was easy to see the science being bent into the desired conclusion. In fact, some of the very studies being used to prove human spread remain to this day the most powerful evidence against human spread. A lot of ignorant people took this bad science very seriously.
What has this little story got to do with the current situation? Not much. Only I didn't and don't fully understand the motives of those bat biologists, and I don't understand the motives of these current epidemiologists. I don't deny their conclusions, but I don't trust them. Any of them, at either extreme. Everyone has an angle. There is no mechanism in place to protect we the ignorant from those angles. Peer review sounds great but it's useless if we aren't peers of the scientists. Our trust of science is a religion most similar to Catholicism in the times of clerical peer-review and dispensation to the wholly ignorant masses.
Science has proved its power. It has yet to prove its wisdom.
|
My question isn't why someone disbelieves the scientific consensus. Or disbelieves all science, for that matter. That's another issue.
It is, if you disbelieve the scientific consensus but believe what one scientist from Bolivia claims---what is it about that one scientist in Bolivia that makes him credible, when the bulk of the community is not?
Assuming, of course, that you are not that scientist in Bolivia, yourself.
|