by Lore » Tue 26 Jul 2011, 21:01:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'I')f 97 out of 100 expert doctors said you had terminal cancer, two said maybe and one said you didn't, would you call yourself yet a hopeful skeptic, or just someone who is in denial?
Medicine is a great analogy, glad you raised it.
Medical consensus is wrong all the time. I used to take Vioxx for my back. It was FDA-approved, my doctor said it was a fantastic drug. Well turns out it can give you a leaking heart valve. Oops,
scientific consensus was wrong, they took it off the market. Knock on wood I took it rarely so hopefully I'm okay.
On big pharma drug after drug, it quite often turns out the scientific consensus on their safety was wrong. The same can be said for medical treatments.. it behooves you to be a Denier and ask lots of questions before you make a decision.
I don't want this thread to be about climate change, my issue here is about dragging the "Science Denier" label into economics. That's a scary thought there, that we can't have political change or even a debate on the debt because "Economic Science" says we can't.
I'm talking about a prognosis by many experts. Not a treatment, which is akin to a discussion of what do we do to remedy AGW.
By nature of being a scientist questions are always asked. Most scientists are skeptics regarding new research until which point a 'theory' becomes more than just a simple hypothesis.
If you cannot begin to accept a proven theory in the first place you cannot, therefore, proceed to address its implications or build further upon it. Just as in a medical treatment. This is exactly what the denialists are hoping to accomplish.