You need to make an actual effort.
You need to make an actual effort.
Doing your own research also means being open to the possibility that your hypothesis is incorrect.
You're viewing a single thread.
I hate people who say this as much as the people who say "do your own research" because they are saying the exact same thing in order to minimize any criticism. They also don't mention that it pertains to very specific types claims. On top of that, many scientific papers often make false claims because academics need funding.
I don't need to "do research" to express my own personal experiences. If a chemical company is saying that their chemicals "are harmless" I'm going to assume that there's a good chance that they're lying out of their ass. The military is currently trying to get out of cleaning up pfas from firefighting foam.
There's certain things that have been around a long time like fluoride in water, which is most likely fine, but nobody can really be sure that there's haven't been some kind of imesurable form of long term effects and people are right not to trust the government.
Another example is GMOs. There's nothing wrong with GMO crops. It's the herbicides and pesticides they use. They aren't just on the outside, the plants are absorbing that stuff. It might only be a small amount, but then again someone could spill a lot in one spot and then a few ears of corn could have a huge amount.
Oil and gas lobbyists spread misinformation about climate change and call it a conspiracy theory. Have you done any climate science to prove it isn't?
The author is dismissing people that don't agree with what they think is true without questioning their own beliefs because they are an academic and obviously accedemics are inherently superior to everyone else.
The problem with all of the things you mentioned is that people who are rational about them don't generally say, "do your own research," they say, "I defer to scientific experts who know a lot more than me."
So I don't have to do my own research on climate change. I just have to trust the educated specialists that have done the research. That's the whole point.
I've seen the claim that average temperatures went up when emissions went down, but this refutes that claim.
A more extreme example is the resistance to hand washing in the medical industry. Experts at the time refuted the claim that hand washing would prevent infection.
https://www.grunge.com/247211/the-tragic-story-of-the-doctor-who-pioneered-hand-washing/
Your first link was about sulfur emissions, not CO2. They do not claim that CO2 isn't warming the Earth.
Your second link is about something that happened before we knew viruses existed.
Be better.
Edit: Isn't, not is.
The hyperfocus on co2 emissions detracts from the discussion around local emissions that have a direct effect on the majority of people.
Germ theory has existed since at least the 1500s.
The argument that you should "trust science" falls flat when science is constantly in flux.
Many scientists base their knowledge on preconceived notions of truth. Never trust someone who is 100% sure of something and don't discount someone just because they aren't a full blown expert.
I didn’t say “trust science.” That is a nonsensical term. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Also, being 100% sure of something is absolutely not scientific. I think the real issue here is that you don’t understand basic concepts like the scientific method.
Also, it is super dishonest to call Fracastoro’s 15th century seed idea “germ theory.”
You're just being dismissive and arrogant, like I'm saying. Academia is nothing more than a gatekeeping cult. You're under the childish assumption that there is "good" and "bad" when those terms are subjective.
Academia is nothing more than a gatekeeping cult.
Got it. Trust memes on Facebook over scientists.