'The dont need to be scientifically literate, they just to need to listen in ppl who are' if by 'listening' you mean mindlessly believe and it kinda sounded like it, that's a very antiscience point of view, even kinda religious-adjacent. Lol
But there are scientist that disagree with global warming isn’t a catastrophe, and some say it is so I mean technically it’s picking which science to follow ???
Sorry, but this is a bullshit argument, Neil… You cannot cherrypick across the entirety of scientific subjects. There can be and are errors simply because the scientific process is conducted by human beings, after all. And while the scientific process is also self-correcting, there is no guarantee on a time frame that does not allow for fantasy theories to emerge and prevail which shouldn't be considered science at all. It may not be climate science, even though deniers believe, it may not be evolution, even though creatards think so…. and it may not be gravity as flattards would have us believe. But textbook macroeconomic theory is so far off the deep end, that the discipline of economics should not ever be called "science". It is not cherrypicking when something like that is possible.
I'm sure the Pope is Catholic
Lol NDT doesn't believe in the healing qualities of crystals?
'The dont need to be scientifically literate, they just to need to listen in ppl who are' if by 'listening' you mean mindlessly believe and it kinda sounded like it, that's a very antiscience point of view, even kinda religious-adjacent. Lol
But there are scientist that disagree with global warming isn’t a catastrophe, and some say it is so I mean technically it’s picking which science to follow ???
Sorry, but this is a bullshit argument, Neil… You cannot cherrypick across the entirety of scientific subjects. There can be and are errors simply because the scientific process is conducted by human beings, after all. And while the scientific process is also self-correcting, there is no guarantee on a time frame that does not allow for fantasy theories to emerge and prevail which shouldn't be considered science at all. It may not be climate science, even though deniers believe, it may not be evolution, even though creatards think so…. and it may not be gravity as flattards would have us believe. But textbook macroeconomic theory is so far off the deep end, that the discipline of economics should not ever be called "science". It is not cherrypicking when something like that is possible.