GalaxyFlyer wrote:I learned early, don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see. Experts are no better at predicting the future than Joe Bag O’Donuts. They’re great at figuring facts but predicting the future where 7.5 billion “decision makers” are involved is tough.
tl;dr in the bottom paragraph
I think your statement is way too broad and simplistic. I agree with your statement but not for the reasons you do, and I think that is the problem.
"Experts." That is one of the main problems. Who are the experts? Why are they qualified? And honestly, does the fact that they have a qualification really matter? What study and research have they put forward and has it been reviewed and verified?
Too many times "experts" are trotted out on the news when they are no expert at all, even if they hold a PhD in a field. Climate science, for example, suffers from this. Who cares if someone with a PhD relating to climate science says man-made global warming is a thing or isn't a thing? Their research and how it stands up matters. And I shouldn't have to even mention people like Al Gore, definitely not experts and they should be discarded by BOTH sides of the debate, IMO
Lost in all this craziness is the raw data and science behind it all. It's often hard to find and poorly communicated. What good is it when a respected organization puts out a release on some hard, peer reviewed science if it isn't reported on or twisted by the dishonest, sensationalist media?
And then the problem gets even worse because people extrapolate the findings. Again, climate change for example. I believe it is happening and caused by humans, based off the peer reviewed research. Doesn't mean I believe anyone that holds this belief (Al Gore for example) and that's where it ends... Has absolutely ZERO bearing on what policy decision I subscribe to. Something should be done but policies "designed to tackle it" aren't automatically accepted by me. Many are crap. One does NOT lead to the other, the bad policy shouldn't lead one to throw out then entire problem as fake news too
With corona, I still hear very easily debunked or refuted claims, the cold kills more people (ignoring future, exponential growth and ignoring that we've taken unprecedented measures to combat it), we only have a tiny amount of cases (again, ignoring the fact that we've taken huge measures to combat the spread, the fact that without containment measures and in months it could EASILY pass the common cold) the entire premise of why we are locking down (NOT to get rid of it, that train has left the station, it's to buy time to prepare and to flatten the curve,) etc
But because true experts put out data on this virus doesn't mean we need to take their opinions on the economy hook line and sinker. They offer valuable data but we must use it with economic experts and then use cost-benefit analysis
Probably tl;dr but thanks if you did read this. If you skipped to the bottom, I think you are conflating "experts" with actual experts. You get a lot of flack on this site and we often disagree but I think you're a smart, logical person, I just think you're unfortunately seeing through the media's crap but throwing the baby out with the bath water (you throw out actual, good studies and data when you discard the crap and noise and fake experts)
