Really people? I think it's sad that appeals to authority are made so much on forums, and so often uncouched. For example, about 95-99% of geoscientists believe that in climate change and that humans have an impact... so? That's like saying 95% of economists believe that taxes have an impact on the economy, neither is an open endorsement of a given plan, but let's assume for a moment that such an endorsement existed. Suppose that 80% of geoscientists said we should enact a carbon tax. Is that sufficient for you to support it? Suppose 80% of economists said we should lower taxes. Is that sufficient t for you to support it? Suppose 80% of economists said we should NOT have a carbon tax, and 80% of geoscientists said we should. What do you do now? And what do you do when the economists overwhelmingly agree that the resolutions that geoscientists overwhelmingly agree on are the least efficient ways to address the problems the geoscientists agree exists? What I'm really questioning here is this appeal to authority substitute for your own rationale and thinking.
Well with politics a person's view is usually an opinion and people look for whatever reinforces that opinion. Climate change is just as much about science as it is politics now. Most who are against it are against for political reasons. Taxes on the other hand have always been political. People are not going to be swayed much about "experts." Now when comes to things like book and movie reviews. I tend to read/watch the book/film and see how my opinion compares. I like things like the Goodreads app and Amazon reviews. I do check those out frequently about purchases.
Given "expert opinion" said Iraq had WMDs and Keynesian economists are often among what is considered "expert opinion" I'm very selected of how much weight I give the opinion of "experts." It's important to always remember these so-called "experts" often have a goal in mind. The Iraq experts wanted to go to war, so they focused on all the reasons and evidence to do so, not the reasons not to and the counter-evidence. Economic 'experts' are the worse, because all of them come from a certain economic school of thought or derive their beliefs from the theories of other "experts" who had radically different views from each other. You could consider Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes to both be "experts," but their economic views were wildly different. That said, most mainstream economists and economic writers worship the alter of Keynes, which is why I don't agree with or accept to what 90% of the mainstream experts say, especially the ones who write for most publications and who are on TV.
Btw, I want to thank people for not trying to hone in on the global warming bit and make this a global warming discussion. That was just an example, this discussion is not about a single issue, it's about how you approach issues.
That's not a good argument against expert opinion because Iraq did indeed have WMD's. Only an idiot would believe that he didn't after he used some of them on his own people. Bush did lie to get us to invade a sovereign nation, but that wasn't the lie he told. - - - Updated - - - Wisdom is knowing when to use expertise and when to disregard it, especially when you understand that some expertise is bought at a high price.
The question was did he have them at the time we went to war. He did not have anything significant, certainly not the "massive stockpiles" that were described to us, certainly not more than some far more dangerous neighbors and certainly no "yellow cake from Africa."
Good, you have a bead on what Bush's lie really was. Hussein had WMD's but there was no imminent threat that would have compelled us to invade a sovereign nation. Bush used a climate of fear to push through what Americans never would have supported in a state of sanity.
It's not the expert opinions or studies themselves that irk me most, it's the blatant distortion of what might have once been a legitimate statement into a politicized soundbite towards political polarization or gain. 1 in 4 children are obese>> 1 in 4 children don't eat a proper diet>>> 1 in 4 children are starving. 1 in 4 women have had consensual sex that they later regretted>>> 1 in 4 women have had sex when they really didn't want to>>> 1 in 4 women have been raped. This goes on and on across the leftosphere. The nonleft has learned to do it as well. Oh joy.
Don't forget 1 in 10 men are gay. They were trying to force feed us that BS when I was in high school.
"Expert opinions" from economists have been partially responsible for multiple financial crises in the past few decades, so no, generally speaking I do not trust economists as far as I can throw them.
Yeah, here's how that one worked: 1 in 10 heterosexual adults had a homosexual experience in either prepuberty or adolescence. Homosexuality is not a choice, but a genetic predisposition, so anyone who ever had a homosexual experience is gay by definition. 1 in 10 people are gay.
As the saying goes, "Trust but verify." Don't just take someone's word as gospel because they have some arbitrary credentials. Study the data yourself to make sure it's correct. If your findings line up with the "experts," then by all means support them. But if your findings are different, speak up about it. Consensus does not determine fact. If 99% of the people believe that 2+2=7, that doesn't mean that the answer to the equation is now 7. It just means that 99% of the people are wrong.
Geoscientists are not expert in taxation so I wouldn't even bother listening to them. If 80% of economists said we should lower taxes to get the economy moving, I might be all ears. If 80% of economists said we should lower taxes to enable the job creators to work their magic, I'd laugh at them. I've been called to provide expert witness testimony many times in my own little sphere. A lawyer on the other side once tried to have me disqualified (that's their job), but the judge told him "He knows more about it than I do. Proceed." Sometimes you just gotta get the best information available.
One of the interesting things about today's college age youth is that more and more they are polling as political independents rather than as loyal Democrats or Republicans. Why? Apparently it's because they are tired of cherry picked 'experts' leaping forward to endorse a candidate or a policy and convincing the voting age youth of this nation that it's the correct thing to do, only to have it turn out that the cherry-picked experts were wrong after all. So it seems that this is going to be the first generation of more or less independent thinkers. Now isn't that spooky as hell? Myself, having been an expert in several different fields I know that it does not automatically instill a messianic type of ability to see the 'truth' of anything that's outside one's field of expertise. Take economic experts (of which I am not one) for example. They might be hell on wheels when it comes to grasping many different theories and understanding how this over here interplays with that over there. But they generally speaking ARE NOT going to know as much about -- say -- the ins and outs of international banking and high finance as people who actually make a living dealing with that sort of thing on a day in and day out basis. So forth and so on. So it's best to pay attention to what various experts have to say in regards to a subject but more importantly to pay close attention to the opposition voices to discover what said experts perhaps don't WANT you to think about.
In this regard there really isn't any dilemma at all. Economists are the experts in economics and therefore are in a position to profer an measured professional opinion of the efficacy of any "carbon tax" in reducing industrial co2 emmissions, and weighing overall economic effects Geoscientist are experts in geosciences which cannot professionally profer a measured scientific opinion on the efficacy of any carbon tax. If one cannot rely on expert opinions and scientific findings to assist in formulation of personal opinion, then one is either offering an uninformed opinion (which history has shown can be extremely damaging) which relies on others uninformed opinions or baised self interests. - - - Updated - - - In general I would agree. However it assumes that one is capable of examining and interpreting the data in any meaningful way, which would REQUIRE either indepth knowledge or reliance on expert interpretation.
Depends on what the appeal is about and to whom they are appealing I suppose. Regardless, taxing me 50% and then taking the money and spending it does not reduce carbon output--it just changes who gets to decide how that money is going to be spent that will increase carbon output. Taxes are about the dumbest way imaginable to effect change, but to liberals they are like a flashing spinning plate that they are unable to resist.
Or blind, infantile arrogance mixed with abject stupidity. Now hand me that knife, I feel a brain surgery coming on.
