Quote:
Originally Posted by Shifty86
What defines a scientist as reputable?
I don't really have a strong opinion either way. I think it's extremely dangerous to just "defer to experts", especially when these experts have been horribly wrong for decades. I'll form my own opinions based on reason and evidenceand the best you've provided so far were condescending remarks and that people live close to water.
evidence is in abundance, we have this wonderful thing called the internet these days that allows you to look at that evidence for yourself.
forming opinions based upon reasoning without evidence is a dangerous game.
and really, do you want to say, "gee, is it really a problem that sea levels rise?" that's not a very well reasoned question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
He wants to use evidence and reason but will unthinkingly use and accept right wing anti rational memes like scientists have been wrong for decades.
yup. exactly the opposite of evidence and reasoning.
unless he is one of those, "until i prove it to myself, even though i have no expertise in the field, i don't believe it" types. in which case, no amount of evidence will change his thinking. if he was thinking like a "scientist", he would be trying to prove himself wrong.
there isn't a scientist that alive that wouldn't like to prove that humans aren't contributing to climate change. besides the nobel prize, there'd be lots of other goodies that would come along with that.