FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > How do you know its true and correct?
How do you know its true and correct?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
This not, and I repeat NOT!!! Anything to do with fab.
How do you know something you're being told is true?
Like, that person over there is an expert in their field, well recognised, is educated in that subject, and has quite the following, may have written a book on the subject and everyone thinks that what they say is true and correct.
What is it exactly that would have you believing something?
Is it that the majority believe?
That they have a qualification?
They are well recognised/known?
Etc
What happens when there's two people with opposing views? But both hold the same factors as each other.
How do you determine then yourself what to believe? And why?
I'm not asking for advice, I have my view, and I'm asking you guys what you do. Because I'm curious inquisitive soul.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This not, and I repeat NOT!!! Anything to do with fab.
How do you know something you're being told is true?
Like, that person over there is an expert in their field, well recognised, is educated in that subject, and has quite the following, may have written a book on the subject and everyone thinks that what they say is true and correct.
What is it exactly that would have you believing something?
Is it that the majority believe?
That they have a qualification?
They are well recognised/known?
Etc
What happens when there's two people with opposing views? But both hold the same factors as each other.
How do you determine then yourself what to believe? And why?
I'm not asking for advice, I have my view, and I'm asking you guys what you do. Because I'm curious inquisitive soul.
"
I listen to both sides of the story then decide for myself, sometimes researching further. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aitonelMan
over a year ago
Liverpool |
It would depend upon what it is but a little bit of self education where possible. Does what they say make sense with regards to other things.
A little bit of blind faith mixed with experience and the above knowledge. Somebody can talk the shit good, seem to know what they are saying with confidence and explain it with detail but if that doesn't align with other things that are similar or are connected in someway then I'd have doubts.
This one overloaded my pervy brain today, so I'm not sure if I explained it well enough. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
To be honest qualified or not I'm quite cynical & don't believe much, I do my own research if it's something I'm interested & figure it out on my own rather than relying on someone else.
We have issues with one of our little ones she goes to the hospital quite a lot (nothing serious) but one specialist likes to talk.... Down I guess is the word, dums it down a lot and as she was speaking I found myself thinking this is a load of bollocks (I am qualified in the area) so I pointed it out and it didn't go down well.
I think some people sometimes say stuff that's not quite accurate in a bid to dumb it down for who they assume don't understand which pisses me off, I'm not actually as thick as I look.
I have no other examples - in life I trust actions over words.
Mrs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I started working life as n Engineer. There's a tongue in cheek saying in the field:
'If we left everything to scientists nothing would get built'.
There's nearly always a discrepancy between theoretical predictions and the results when tested. There's all kinds of mathematical magic. Equations from first principles are adapted to fit the results with fudge factors. Lines of best fit, numerical integration techniques, fudge factors. It is an iterative process where the theory is refined to fit what works. Then that's passed back to the scientists to work out what's wrong with the theory. They usually blame the testing.
Even with the purely material, there's judgement calls. You drive it, fly in it, sit on it and it's in your hand right now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bi HaiveMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
There are very few people I'd ever trust implicitly to be accurate, honest and beyond doubt.
We're all capable of looking into things deeper and deciding what we believe based on our own efforts, rather than relying on others to do the work for us. We make our own choices, right or wrong.
It's too easy just to hear/see/read something or be told something by another and put absolute faith in it.
And it often leads to disappointment when you do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This not, and I repeat NOT!!! Anything to do with fab.
How do you know something you're being told is true?
Like, that person over there is an expert in their field, well recognised, is educated in that subject, and has quite the following, may have written a book on the subject and everyone thinks that what they say is true and correct.
What is it exactly that would have you believing something?
Is it that the majority believe?
That they have a qualification?
They are well recognised/known?
Etc
What happens when there's two people with opposing views? But both hold the same factors as each other.
How do you determine then yourself what to believe? And why?
I'm not asking for advice, I have my view, and I'm asking you guys what you do. Because I'm curious inquisitive soul.
"
I decide myself based on experience or looking up facts .
I don't tend to go with the crowd either it's about people, music, politics, best chocolate, best movie...etc.
It's causing issues sometimes, but I know who I am.
Always the same guy looking back from the mirror.
I'm good/bad or smart/idiot is not decided by the number of people don't like me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *TG3Man
over a year ago
Dorchester |
"This not, and I repeat NOT!!! Anything to do with fab.
How do you know something you're being told is true?
Like, that person over there is an expert in their field, well recognised, is educated in that subject, and has quite the following, may have written a book on the subject and everyone thinks that what they say is true and correct.
What is it exactly that would have you believing something?
Is it that the majority believe?
That they have a qualification?
They are well recognised/known?
Etc
What happens when there's two people with opposing views? But both hold the same factors as each other.
How do you determine then yourself what to believe? And why?
I'm not asking for advice, I have my view, and I'm asking you guys what you do. Because I'm curious inquisitive soul.
"
I don't necessarily believe the experts i like to find things out for myself but obviously their are many things it isn't possible to do that so you have to take onboard the advice given. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Having been the subject of a lot of significant lies, I have quite strong opinions about this. Put simply, I don’t believe anything anyone says, unless I can confirm it for myself. I trust my eyes and ears, and if I’m sufficiently motivated, I trust my ability to research and ascertain the provenience of sources. Then I’ll make my choice, but retain a healthy dose of scepticism about the position I adopt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There's nothing that gives the game away more than the phrase "do your own research". It's red flag central.
Where is this 'research' to be extracted from? We are all drawing from the secondary research that's currently available unless people are proposing they literally undertake a peer-reviewed study of their own to produce genuine primary research?
Has the person suggesting everyone "does their own research" actually conducted primary research themselves using as far untapped data to conclude that their new findings usurp that of an expert in their field who has spent their life studying the matter in question? Or does it actually mean they've watched a couple of YouTube vids?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Having been the subject of a lot of significant lies, I have quite strong opinions about this. Put simply, I don’t believe anything anyone says, unless I can confirm it for myself. I trust my eyes and ears, and if I’m sufficiently motivated, I trust my ability to research and ascertain the provenience of sources. Then I’ll make my choice, but retain a healthy dose of scepticism about the position I adopt. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't consider I "know" what is true. I look at sources, consider motivations and competence, assess consistency, compare with other sources, and how things align with previous assessments I have made about what is true. Then I make judgement call which I hope is right. It's always a sliding scale of confidence, not a declaration of truth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To be honest qualified or not I'm quite cynical & don't believe much, I do my own research if it's something I'm interested & figure it out on my own rather than relying on someone else.
We have issues with one of our little ones she goes to the hospital quite a lot (nothing serious) but one specialist likes to talk.... Down I guess is the word, dums it down a lot and as she was speaking I found myself thinking this is a load of bollocks (I am qualified in the area) so I pointed it out and it didn't go down well.
I think some people sometimes say stuff that's not quite accurate in a bid to dumb it down for who they assume don't understand which pisses me off, I'm not actually as thick as I look.
I have no other examples - in life I trust actions over words.
Mrs "
I've had this too, both with me and my girls, talked to like I was an imbecile until I corrected them that I knew exactly what they were talking about, I'm qualified in and have experience in a couple of fields so didn't appreciate it.
Tinder |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There is nothing about physical reality that can be proven to be 100% true. Even our own eyes could lie. But we all use a probability based system to determine whether to believe something or not. But the most important of it all is that one should be able to say "Not enough data to make the decision" or in other words,"I don't know"
A nobel winning scientist talking about a subject that he own nobel prize in? Very high probability that it's true.
The same scientist giving opinion about action films? I would take it with a pinch of salt.
A politician talking about personal sacrifice? Call it bullshit immediately.
Two trustable people giving opposite views on a topic I know? I try to take their views and figure out what's believable.
The same situation but on a topic I don't know about? I just smile say I know nothing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Probably not the thread to read just after choosing a surgeon… 
In many parts of life you have to seek out the facts that are important to you. Do your homework and follow your gut. In this case recommendations go far. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's nothing that gives the game away more than the phrase "do your own research". It's red flag central.
Where is this 'research' to be extracted from? We are all drawing from the secondary research that's currently available unless people are proposing they literally undertake a peer-reviewed study of their own to produce genuine primary research?
Has the person suggesting everyone "does their own research" actually conducted primary research themselves using as far untapped data to conclude that their new findings usurp that of an expert in their field who has spent their life studying the matter in question? Or does it actually mean they've watched a couple of YouTube vids?
"
I did my own research when I was waiting to be diagnosed with cancer, I looked for weeks online finding out how it is dealt with and treated. There was some good information from a few universities, that had done resesrch on different ways to treat it.
So when I went through the operation and treatment, I knew what to expect and when. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's nothing that gives the game away more than the phrase "do your own research". It's red flag central.
Where is this 'research' to be extracted from? We are all drawing from the secondary research that's currently available unless people are proposing they literally undertake a peer-reviewed study of their own to produce genuine primary research?
Has the person suggesting everyone "does their own research" actually conducted primary research themselves using as far untapped data to conclude that their new findings usurp that of an expert in their field who has spent their life studying the matter in question? Or does it actually mean they've watched a couple of YouTube vids?
I did my own research when I was waiting to be diagnosed with cancer, I looked for weeks online finding out how it is dealt with and treated. There was some good information from a few universities, that had done resesrch on different ways to treat it.
So when I went through the operation and treatment, I knew what to expect and when."
A lot of the 'do your own research' crowd would not approve of you using actual experts and medical professionals to find out that information. It's far too mainstream and sensible for them and you're likely to be told to "wake up sheeple!".
They usually need a splash of conspiracy theory, a pinch of disgraced-scientist-turned-Rumble-influencer and a bucket of delusion to form their opinions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Of a sizeable majority of experts (actual experts, folks with qualifications and experience on the subject at hand) are largely in agreement, I tend to accept their findings rather than the bloke down the pub who watched something on YouTube that disputes it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This not, and I repeat NOT!!! Anything to do with fab.
How do you know something you're being told is true?
Like, that person over there is an expert in their field, well recognised, is educated in that subject, and has quite the following, may have written a book on the subject and everyone thinks that what they say is true and correct.
What is it exactly that would have you believing something?
Is it that the majority believe?
That they have a qualification?
They are well recognised/known?
Etc
What happens when there's two people with opposing views? But both hold the same factors as each other.
How do you determine then yourself what to believe? And why?
I'm not asking for advice, I have my view, and I'm asking you guys what you do. Because I'm curious inquisitive soul.
"
Is it that the majority believe?
NO - things are not true according to 'common sense' which is quite often nonsensical e.g. If I asked 100 young children if they thought Father Christmas was real they'd say yes. If I asked a church congregation if God existed they'd say yes. Truth is not to be found in numbers.
That they have a qualification?
I wouldn't disagree on a point made by someone who has knowledge of something that I don't but I'd still check it out. e.g. A car mechanic tells me that it's a very difficult job to change the doofahs cos you first have to take out the do dahs.... I'd ask a couple more mechanics or check for info somewhere but there is NO WAY i'd argue the toss with the first mechanic as I clearly don't have that kind of knowledge HOWEVER that doesn't mean I fall at his feet and his first word and let him do the job. In any circumstance in life you arm yourself with data and then apply some thought.
They are well recognised/known?
NO. Joey Essex is well recognised but I don't want his advice on life or any other matter. A lot of youtubers and influencers are well known and are just fast talking bullshitters. Others are worth listening to.
What happens when there's two people with opposing views? But both hold the same factors as each other.
How do you determine then yourself what to believe? And why?
ME There is not necessarily a need to choose a side. Weigh up both arguments. Take elements from each and come up with your own answer. You can side with one person but you shouldn't without first thinking logically about what is being said.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To be honest qualified or not I'm quite cynical & don't believe much, I do my own research if it's something I'm interested & figure it out on my own rather than relying on someone else.
We have issues with one of our little ones she goes to the hospital quite a lot (nothing serious) but one specialist likes to talk.... Down I guess is the word, dums it down a lot and as she was speaking I found myself thinking this is a load of bollocks (I am qualified in the area) so I pointed it out and it didn't go down well.
I think some people sometimes say stuff that's not quite accurate in a bid to dumb it down for who they assume don't understand which pisses me off, I'm not actually as thick as I look.
I have no other examples - in life I trust actions over words.
Mrs
I've had this too, both with me and my girls, talked to like I was an imbecile until I corrected them that I knew exactly what they were talking about, I'm qualified in and have experience in a couple of fields so didn't appreciate it.
Tinder "
It's so frustrating isn't it, I know we are in the same profession so totally relatable, I swear some get a little kick out of spouting utter bollocks 
Mrs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This not, and I repeat NOT!!! Anything to do with fab.
How do you know something you're being told is true?
Like, that person over there is an expert in their field, well recognised, is educated in that subject, and has quite the following, may have written a book on the subject and everyone thinks that what they say is true and correct.
What is it exactly that would have you believing something?
Is it that the majority believe?
That they have a qualification?
They are well recognised/known?
Etc
What happens when there's two people with opposing views? But both hold the same factors as each other.
How do you determine then yourself what to believe? And why?
I'm not asking for advice, I have my view, and I'm asking you guys what you do. Because I'm curious inquisitive soul.
"
For me, the starting point is UNDERSTANDING. A decent comprehension of the science behind the information I am looking at goes a long way to establishing the accuracy of that information.
When it comes to very technical stuff, that exceeds my comprehension, then it should be validated by other independent experts in the same field (peer reviewed).
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Depends on how invested I am in the truth. Some matters are inconsequential to me, some are important but won't have bearing on my future, some are life changing.
I'll put lots of effort into leveling myself up so I can talk with a tiny bit of expertise on the life changing matters. If an expert confirms the few bits and bobs I've learned then I'll have faith in that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As time passes I think self education on said subject I'd the key. Too often experts tend to have a bias and that can skew their delivery on a subject. Read/Listen up from various angles and decide for oneself |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To be honest qualified or not I'm quite cynical & don't believe much, I do my own research if it's something I'm interested & figure it out on my own rather than relying on someone else.
We have issues with one of our little ones she goes to the hospital quite a lot (nothing serious) but one specialist likes to talk.... Down I guess is the word, dums it down a lot and as she was speaking I found myself thinking this is a load of bollocks (I am qualified in the area) so I pointed it out and it didn't go down well.
I think some people sometimes say stuff that's not quite accurate in a bid to dumb it down for who they assume don't understand which pisses me off, I'm not actually as thick as I look.
I have no other examples - in life I trust actions over words.
Mrs
I've had this too, both with me and my girls, talked to like I was an imbecile until I corrected them that I knew exactly what they were talking about, I'm qualified in and have experience in a couple of fields so didn't appreciate it.
Tinder
It's so frustrating isn't it, I know we are in the same profession so totally relatable, I swear some get a little kick out of spouting utter bollocks
Mrs "
I moved over and qualified with another dept, eldest got ill, rang gp told them what it was and what my profession was and that my supervisor had checked too and confirmed..... I got I'm sure its not you'll have to bring her in, I lost work hours and her school for them to look and go....oh it is here's a prescription, they could have done it all over the phone.
Tinder |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
When getting conflicting messages, I tend to look at things like credentials, track record, impartiality etc, and why the person might be saying what then are saying.
For example, a leading scientist who is on the payroll of a tobacco firm might not be the most impartial. Or an online windbag who makes money every time they court controversy might not be impartial or have relevant expertise |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Let's be clear. Nobody at the level I think we are discussing here 'does their own research'.
Genuine primary research is hard and takes a lot of time, money and resources.
Even people who think they have cracked the matrix are only drawing from information that already exists in the public domain. It's not genuine research in the true meaning of the word it's about choosing to believe the prevailing science, experts and professionals or a crackpot outlier who supports your confirmation bias. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let's be clear. Nobody at the level I think we are discussing here 'does their own research'.
Genuine primary research is hard and takes a lot of time, money and resources.
Even people who think they have cracked the matrix are only drawing from information that already exists in the public domain. It's not genuine research in the true meaning of the word it's about choosing to believe the prevailing science, experts and professionals or a crackpot outlier who supports your confirmation bias."
Completely agree. Looking up a few YouTube videos isn’t “doing your own research”. Research is something a lot more substantial |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's a good point. Is truth binary or are there degrees of truth? Or even opposing truths? As for qualifications to tell truths, even 'experts' only give professional opinions based on their judgement. There are few 'absolutes' in science, medicine, law. My experience is to always question supposed truths and where possible cross-reference what you are being told. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a good point. Is truth binary or are there degrees of truth? Or even opposing truths? As for qualifications to tell truths, even 'experts' only give professional opinions based on their judgement. There are few 'absolutes' in science, medicine, law. My experience is to always question supposed truths and where possible cross-reference what you are being told."
Back later. I'm still cross referencing this ...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a good point. Is truth binary or are there degrees of truth? Or even opposing truths? As for qualifications to tell truths, even 'experts' only give professional opinions based on their judgement. There are few 'absolutes' in science, medicine, law. My experience is to always question supposed truths and where possible cross-reference what you are being told."
There are no absolute truths about physical reality, even in science. Just probabilities of things to be true and not true. It just makes sense for us to take decisions based on information which has the highest probability to be true. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This not, and I repeat NOT!!! Anything to do with fab.
How do you know something you're being told is true?
Like, that person over there is an expert in their field, well recognised, is educated in that subject, and has quite the following, may have written a book on the subject and everyone thinks that what they say is true and correct.
What is it exactly that would have you believing something?
Is it that the majority believe?
That they have a qualification?
They are well recognised/known?
Etc
What happens when there's two people with opposing views? But both hold the same factors as each other.
How do you determine then yourself what to believe? And why?
I'm not asking for advice, I have my view, and I'm asking you guys what you do. Because I'm curious inquisitive soul.
"
- I from as far back as I remember, have navigated life intuitively. I’ve never taken peoples word on anything. What works for them, won’t necessarily work for me. Also I cross-reference everything presented as ‘fact’, take what applies to me and move forward with that. People/organisations/authorities have agendas  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Questioning genuine experts isn't a bad thing per se, we are after all living in a world full of shades of grey and without new critical thinking we wouldn't advance much as a species.
Equally though there is the Dunning-Kruger effect with people choosing to take contrary views to the mainstream because they believe it positions themselves as an 'alternative expert'. They mop up a few disciples along the way and they then go about reinforcing each other's beliefs and share stock buzz words and phrases as insults to everyone who accepts the prevailing science. They think they've cracked the system, everyone else just rolls their eyes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This not, and I repeat NOT!!! Anything to do with fab.
How do you know something you're being told is true?
Like, that person over there is an expert in their field, well recognised, is educated in that subject, and has quite the following, may have written a book on the subject and everyone thinks that what they say is true and correct.
What is it exactly that would have you believing something?
Is it that the majority believe?
That they have a qualification?
They are well recognised/known?
Etc
What happens when there's two people with opposing views? But both hold the same factors as each other.
How do you determine then yourself what to believe? And why?
I'm not asking for advice, I have my view, and I'm asking you guys what you do. Because I'm curious inquisitive soul.
"
I never believed those involved in covid every day on my tv screen. They were qualified to brainwash.
University taught me to research but not everything is black and white on Google or books.
If I look at all the facts, true facts then I form my own beliefs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I get that COVID is going to come up a lot in this thread and it's understandable. There's a lot of mistrust that's already been mentioned - brainwashing, opposing scientific views etc.
The thing is there's not one person who is an expert of *all* of the various elements. The expert in modelling the spread of infection is not the same person who advises on how to stop the spread, who is also not the same person who develops a cure or who assesses the economic damage various paths might take.
Furthermore, all of those experts who stood in front of us (Whitty for example) would then have their own subordinates and specialists who are each providing him with various bits of research for him to analyse and present to government and the public.
Each of these experts in their field may well have had a view on the other aspects of the pandemic (as did we all I'm sure) but they wouldn't stand on the TV and give their personal opinions on the matter.
I'm no fan of Johnson but his position was an unenviable one as he had to makes decisions based upon the evidence presented to him by all the above advisers along with how his polling might look given a certain path. Incompetence within government and political pressure might be a boring explanation for how things went 'wrong' but it's a more realistic one than some of the more fanciful conspiracy theories that were floating around.
The ongoing inquiry shows how much disagreement there was between those involved at the sharp end so it's ludicrous to take a position of not trusting *anyone* given that there wasn't a hivemind collective trying to brainwash us all to believe a certain thing. The scientists presented the facts of the matter and then it was down to the politicians to decide which path to take.
Without doubt it was all done on the hop but, from the science side at least, people were acting in good faith and with the limited evidence they had available. They were certainly a lot better equipped to know what to do and advise than Joe Public sat at home armed with Wikipedia and YouTube 'doing their own research'.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Oh I have been in that situation with my friends.
They are both very sucessful in their fields but have different views and opinions on it and among other things.
I try to use my own experience and understanding, sometimes go and educate myslef/do research to see what is my understanding of it ( sometimes it isnt right) and take it from there.
However I do find it funny when they try to be expert in my work field and experience... and dont take my view on board, then i have turned out to be correct.
It costed them significant amount of money, since then they actually learned to come to me first.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This not, and I repeat NOT!!! Anything to do with fab.
How do you know something you're being told is true?
Like, that person over there is an expert in their field, well recognised, is educated in that subject, and has quite the following, may have written a book on the subject and everyone thinks that what they say is true and correct.
What is it exactly that would have you believing something?
Is it that the majority believe?
That they have a qualification?
They are well recognised/known?
Etc
What happens when there's two people with opposing views? But both hold the same factors as each other.
How do you determine then yourself what to believe? And why?
I'm not asking for advice, I have my view, and I'm asking you guys what you do. Because I'm curious inquisitive soul.
"
I put it to a regular panel if experts on Facebook… it’s so useful having a resource where there are experts in everything you could think of - and many are experts in so many different field from geo politics to international finance and virology to …. Everything else!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I get that COVID is going to come up a lot in this thread and it's understandable. There's a lot of mistrust that's already been mentioned - brainwashing, opposing scientific views etc.
The thing is there's not one person who is an expert of *all* of the various elements. The expert in modelling the spread of infection is not the same person who advises on how to stop the spread, who is also not the same person who develops a cure or who assesses the economic damage various paths might take.
Furthermore, all of those experts who stood in front of us (Whitty for example) would then have their own subordinates and specialists who are each providing him with various bits of research for him to analyse and present to government and the public.
Each of these experts in their field may well have had a view on the other aspects of the pandemic (as did we all I'm sure) but they wouldn't stand on the TV and give their personal opinions on the matter.
I'm no fan of Johnson but his position was an unenviable one as he had to makes decisions based upon the evidence presented to him by all the above advisers along with how his polling might look given a certain path. Incompetence within government and political pressure might be a boring explanation for how things went 'wrong' but it's a more realistic one than some of the more fanciful conspiracy theories that were floating around.
The ongoing inquiry shows how much disagreement there was between those involved at the sharp end so it's ludicrous to take a position of not trusting *anyone* given that there wasn't a hivemind collective trying to brainwash us all to believe a certain thing. The scientists presented the facts of the matter and then it was down to the politicians to decide which path to take.
Without doubt it was all done on the hop but, from the science side at least, people were acting in good faith and with the limited evidence they had available. They were certainly a lot better equipped to know what to do and advise than Joe Public sat at home armed with Wikipedia and YouTube 'doing their own research'.
"
I'd really prefer it if COVID was kept to the virus forum and not used as a subject in this particular thread I think it would derail the thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It depends on the topic, you could for example have Richard Dawkins in one chair & the pope in the other, each supremely qualified in their respective field, only one is backed up by supporting evidence & data, the other simply is not, faced with that choice which would you choose to believe ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a good point. Is truth binary or are there degrees of truth? Or even opposing truths? As for qualifications to tell truths, even 'experts' only give professional opinions based on their judgement. There are few 'absolutes' in science, medicine, law. My experience is to always question supposed truths and where possible cross-reference what you are being told."
Some situations are clearcut, others are more nuanced.
When an “expert” community is leaning toward a particular answer but there are dissenting professional voices, I tend to look at those outliers for clues. Eg do they have a good track record of being right, or do they always seem to be the dissenting voice and may just be looking to draw attention / headlines / clicks?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
