Science is about finding the truth. The concept of ‘a truth’ based on ‘consensus science’ has the same relationship to the scientific method as homeopathy.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97
It means that it took several generations of doctors to reach a consensus around the fact that viruses are actually very dangerous and we can be reasonably sure that the Rogan's objections have already been presented and discarded as bullshit. More than one time.
It also means that if Rogan, a man in his middle 50s, spreads disinformation on a platform where a large part of the audience is young, we risk that the future generation will be familiar with his bullshit theories.
That's why he shouldn't be allowed to be a popular voice.
Believing that science is always correct it's wrong, science gives us ranges, plausible certainties, risk evaluation strategies, but believing that people outside of science can disprove what people of science have studied and discussed for decades, it's idiotic.
That is beautiful horrific observation by one of my favorite scientists.
You are right.
Just have some lemma near some old proof.
Still being knowledgable about science and understanding its method for finding truth is currently the best weapon against the snake oil salesmen and their buttery voices.
I talk about science the method, not the group of old men grading papers. Maybe that is our misunderstanding. For you science is the scientific community, for me it is the method.
One has a consensus, one clearly does not.
simply put: one doctor's opinion is bullshit same as my opinions are bullshit.
If a large number of doctors say X is true and Y is bullshit, if I think Y is true and X bullshit, I need the same number of doctors to agree with me to counter the argument.
You're acting like 'doctors' are a commodity. Researchers with their names on patents that are frequently published are worth more than a thousand GPs.
