10 Famous People Mistakenly Cited as Experts
TopTenz | 28.V.2018
- 1:34 Come on, a debate and a productive conversation are two different types of verbal interaction.
And while climate change was perhaps on the debate Ham vs Nye, the main topic was Creation vs Evolution.
What is the scientific field for that one, if there is any?
And Tyson being good at explaining concepts doesn't exactly mean he is good at examining what concept needs to be considered as true.
And I mean this on a "simple concept" level.
- I think your obsession with "no training at all" is somewhat of an appeal for East Bloc "intellectual hierarchies" ...
In the East Bloc, however, people were also trained in ideology and it spread very well thanks to Darwinism and Draper White, so, this means while people were basically required to either listen to "trained people" or shut up, they were also required to listen to this ideology. And in some cases, like Oparin's idea of abiogenesis, there was more ideology than science.
Experiments have to date failed to replicate what Oparin was suggesting.
Speaking of which, while you are not the active researcher behind all of your shows, you definitely have hosted some badly researched comments, like Uighurs being a Muslim sect rather than a majority Muslim ethnicity in China.
Check this link:
Comic Guide : Marco Polo : Band: 6 - In der Höhle der gelben Teufel
If you look at the picture in the link, you will see one Marco Polo in fictitious situations and just before him, an Uighur who is a Buddhist. While that person is a comic book fiction by Enzo Chiomenti and Jean Ollivier, that comic book seemed to be well researched and therfore, if it features an Uighur Buddhist, I take it Uighurs in historic times have been both Buddhists and Muslims.
Since the image doesn't click up on previous link, here is a link directly to image:
- 10:46 You're the opposite of Beyoncé in my criticism.
She got credit for writing songs written by her team, you got discredits for research done by the teams you represent ...
Apart from the difference between credit and discredit, the situation is parallel.
Internet users are often these days used to doing their thing without a team behind them, that includes me, I sometimes get dialogue partners or correspondence debates, but there is no standing team I consciously work with (there might be one hiding from me, but making youtube recommendations, though), so, I see a vlogger (I'm a blogger, with b) and assume he's researched what he is saying. My bad.
Taking note, the author of this one is Gregory Myers.
- 12:57 In other words, how about starting to cite C. S. Lewis or G. K. Chesterton instead of Einstein?
They were amateurs, but they certainly cared and certainly did amateur level research ... they also showed me the way to a clearly well trained theologian like St Thomas Aquinas, and I am probably not the only one.
- 13:40 Actually, the individual mom ought to be more important than any number of scientists a to the vaccines her baby is or is not given in shots.
The fact there are even groups of moms shows that governement has been giving too much power to scientific expertise and too little to those God actually gave the task of taking care of the children, moms and pops.
"many deadly diseases that were thought beaten could start seeing a serious resurgence"
Oh, the way mankind survives is by beating deadly diseases till all are immortal, not by reproducing so those who die are replaced in their families?
So not the case.
These scientists may be well trained in immunology, in epidemology and so on, but they have no training in Christian morality (as can be seen from some supporting abortion and contraception) and therefore their view on whether vaccines should be compulsory or not is morally worthless - at least not greater than that of moms and pops.
14:13 "The problem comes down to the way many people evaluate information,"
And so scientists should be given the power to evaluate it for other people and enforce their evaluation? Sounds horribly East Bloc to me.
"and it leads to many parents improperly considering other mothers or parents as experts simply because they happen to also have a child"
I'm not sure considering them "as experts" is really the correct term.
They may be considered as a relevant counter culture. Their stance may be considered as the morally correct stance. Which the epidemologist as epidemologist, the immunologist as immunologist, has really no superior knowledge or training about.
Probably the idea of "many deadly diseases" ties in with "we live significantly longer now than back before medicine checked epidemics".
We have less child mortality, unless you count abortion and in at least one case a vaccination cocktail gone wrong.
But adults certainly do live at most a decade or two more than earlier, and those who live longest seem to be most tied to caring homes. While people leading rich lives, even among atheists, one could cite Christopher Hitchens who died at 62 a few years below the median of a medieval non-royal and non-feudal known person.
Like C. S. Lewis, 64. Tolkien dying at 81 would be like near upper end of pre-modern known people.
- 14:27 "as if having a child made you an expert not only on child rearing, it also makes you an expert at everything that could possibly befall them"
We live under God's providence, there is no such thing a an expert at everything that can befall anyone.
I prefer someone erroneously getting a similar status by the actual parents over someone being given by the state such a status against parents, as in CPS decisions.
14:31 "she is just sure of it"
Well, how have revolutions happened in the past?
Even erroneous suspicions against people in certain positions have been decisive for taking action. Sometimes bad action, as storming of the Bastille, with a blood bath on the guards, but those doing it had no training in military discipline any more than the first crusaders and those having such training were exactly the suspects.
Collectively, and due to an overkill a few months earlier, perhaps not quite unreasonably.
Here it is experts who are the suspects.
If you recall what expertise were giving as advice to the Kennedy family about Rosemary, perhaps not too unreasonably either.
I'd agree with Gregory Myers that she was wrong in saying her child got autism from vaccines.
I think you are likely to be wrong whenever you say your child has autism, even if it is from a psychological or psychiatric authority saying so.
Post a Comment