undefined | Better HN

0 pointscivilized4y ago0 comments

You can make a long list of times outsiders were right and the establishment was wrong. You can also make a long list of times outsiders were wrong and the establishment was right.

Why would you mention only one list and not the other?

Why would you want to enlist as a soldier in one side of a cause where neither side is reliable, neither side has your best interests in mind?

You're playing yourself for a fool.

0 comments

headsoup4y ago

No. It's not about sides. It's about listening to a range of views. I'm talking about 'only' one list because that was the topic.

People gotta stop with this whole "you're either with the science or against it" rubbish. Be adults, inform yourself and make decisions. Don't just let media, politicians or fringe dwellers define your 'label' for you.

Complex issues need complex thought, but it's easy to just fall for paternalism and externalise your responsibility.

You're playing yourself the fool by thinking this is just a game of being on the winning team.

civilizedOP4y ago

The topic is cherry-picking experts (outsider experts in Rogan's case). The person you replied to said it can be justified because some experts are better than others, implying that outsider experts are better in this case. You supported that by saying there's a long list of cases where outsider experts are right and establishment experts are wrong.

In this topic, it's clearly relevant that this is far from universally the case. The establishment is often correct as well. That's why you don't want to cherry pick all your experts from one side. Especially if you yourself lack the ability to tell which experts are more expert, which is definitely true in Rogan's case.

headsoup4y ago

The person I replied to was quite obviously being sarcastic I thought, and if not then I misread, apologies.

As in my other responses, I agree and my view is not to just dismiss a view just because of which 'side' it is on.

We must keep reprosecuting the evidence, data and opinions over time to try to maintain objectivity while avoiding being swayed by manipulation, fraud and/or populist consensus.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointscivilized4y ago0 comments

You can make a long list of times outsiders were right and the establishment was wrong. You can also make a long list of times outsiders were wrong and the establishment was right.

Why would you mention only one list and not the other?

Why would you want to enlist as a soldier in one side of a cause where neither side is reliable, neither side has your best interests in mind?

You're playing yourself for a fool.

0 comments

headsoup4y ago

No. It's not about sides. It's about listening to a range of views. I'm talking about 'only' one list because that was the topic.

Complex issues need complex thought, but it's easy to just fall for paternalism and externalise your responsibility.

You're playing yourself the fool by thinking this is just a game of being on the winning team.

civilizedOP4y ago

headsoup4y ago

The person I replied to was quite obviously being sarcastic I thought, and if not then I misread, apologies.

As in my other responses, I agree and my view is not to just dismiss a view just because of which 'side' it is on.

We must keep reprosecuting the evidence, data and opinions over time to try to maintain objectivity while avoiding being swayed by manipulation, fraud and/or populist consensus.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse