The debate "I am not a scientist but... then shut up and let the scientists talk" was started by
May 3, 2016, 1:54 pm.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 20 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
dalton7532 posted 2 arguments, danielle posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, blakelovesjesus posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, sagitario, joy25joy, Theswimmer, SwaggerPoptart, SueAnnMohr, cmt11, moneybagboyz, TheExistentialist, north and 12 visitors agree.
danielle, dalton7532, jjmaann, truce_jttm, fadi, sabrina, rawblood, blakelovesjesus, neveralone and 11 visitors disagree.
so you are fine with our leaders ignoring scientific fact and promoting the ideas of whoever pays them the most?
the politician who said this should be immediately hauled into court to answer for curroption charges.
why do you say that? do you agree with nonscientist law makers completely ignoring scientific fact when it comes to issues related to science?
This is probably the stupidest thing in the world to debate over. The topic sentence of course.
This is stupid
if 100% of independent economists, on both the left and right supported a certain approach, would you not expect politicians to listen to them?
economists are human and have flaws of course, but they definitely have more knowledge of the economy than politicians, and a worldwide consensus is much more than just 1 person. A consensus is greater than just the sum of the individual opinions.
politicians are not economists, and they are not scientists. what they are known for is being current in the face of big money and I don't understand how people can just buy their bullshit so willingly.
it is a citizens job to tell his representatives how to do theirs...
except a congressman is not an expert on anything except buying votes. why would their opinion on climate change matter any more than anyone else with no background in science?
im not a congressman. then shut the f*** up and let the congressman talk.
see how murky that can get?
*theories change with NEW evidence
-people are entitled to their own opinion, I've seen videos trying to support the opinion that the earth is flat. that doesn't mean all opinions are correct, and that is why we have to look at the evidence.
-there is a difference between expert opinion and layman opinion. If all the doctors in the nation say vegetables are good for you, and McConnell says "I am not a doctor but vegetables are poison I tell you, and I will legislate to stop any spreading ov vegetables" will you also say "everyone is entitled to their opinion?"
-there are several versions of the big bang theory, but all legitimate explanations for the creation events start at a universe expanding from a singularity. the "rainbow gravity" theory has absolutely nothing to do with creation but with how gravity affects light.
theories change with no evidence, but almost never are theories completely wrong, like going from the earth is a sphere to the earth is an oblong sphere flattened at the poles and a bulge in the middle.
-People are entitled to their own opinions. Whether or not you believe in global warming, you should be able to voice your opinion on it. People believe the climate always changes, and this time is no different than all the other changes we had.
-If I disagree with something, I will voice my opinion on it. I will crush Bill Nye in a scientific debate. I think Ken Ham's arguments were invalid for a scientific debate. I can and believe I can crush him in a debate, and I would honestly like to debate him.
-Science is the gathering of knowledge. We gather data, and we form hypothesis/theories on how to explain certain events. The events are not always correct. There are many explanations for single events.
-For instance, how the universe wad created, there is rainbow gravity theory and the big bang theory. Scientific analysis are meant for contradiction and debating. Why can't we do the same with creation/global warming?
I'm talking about politicians, like McConnell who use this statement to contradict and deny what a global consensus of scientists are finding to be true, primarily about global warming.
I'm not trying to get into a debate about global warming cause denialists just claim world wide conspiracy against their crappy, health hazard jobs, but why do people listen to these guys,w ho are not scientists, completely contradict what scientists are saying?
I'm not a scientist but I know things about science,
I'm not a psychologist but I know things about psychology
I have A-levels in these, so when I talk about them I do know what I'm talking about. I don't know it to a scientist's level, I don't know it to a psychologists level, but the point is I might know more about it than someone else who doesn't study these.
Therefore, no you shouldn't have to shut up of someone knows what they are talking about it doesn't matter whether they are super qualified or not!
What's your opinion and point on this?
"I'm not a doctor but, you should ignore what all the other doctors are saying, you are fine."
would you believe that?