XFool wrote:Lootman wrote:NeilW wrote:A groupthink then, since there is little understanding of what reality actually is at the moment. Cases have shot up since the 24th July when masks were introduced. Yet the response of the groupthink is to do it harder and longer and tell people they're not doing it right, rather than ask questions about the effectiveness of the entire approach compared to the Swedish alternative.
How correct were the experts about the Lipid Hyopthesis? How correct are the 'experts' about anything. Why is Ferguson still in a job despite being utterly wrong several times in a row? Because he's a silver tongued individual with good connections?
I find it very amusing that circumstantial evidence pieces published in supposed scientific journals in favour of the groupthink is prematurely extrapolated and jumped on, despite not being replicated studies in any way shape or form. Yet circumstantial evidence pieces in the other direction are dismissed with a wave of the hand.
This isn't science. It's Scientism. A persuasion technique that started in the social sciences and, regrettably, appears to be drifting into the life sciences.
Appeal to expert is a logical fallacy. You don't know they are experts. Until validated by replicated experiment they are soothsayers.
Nicely phrased. If anyone watched the Channel Four news last night you could add that to the body of evidence that says that if you ask ten experts you will get ten different opinions. There was a SAGE "expert" and a Barrington "expert" arguing their respectful but contrary points. Both sounded credible and plausible, but they can't both be right.
P.S. Though liked the way you used an example of TWO opposed "experts" to jump to the conclusion that if you had ten experts there would be ten differing opinions!
I'd need a reason to believe that wasn't true based on my personal experience of listening to experts (or specialists as they sometimes like to call themselves).