|
| He makes some good points and some poor ones. Yes, science is a process and I'd say the odds are that the consensus will be more likely to be true than the outlier but at the same time the outlier was saying what is generally accepted science now. His questionable example of the steak didn't prove his claim that searing does not lock-in more moisture because they comped weight not moisture content. He should still be right but I disagree that his example "proves" it. When he mentions child deaths in 1867, then says it's due to science he is right but then goes on to basically attribute it to vaccines, completely ignoring the advent of indoor plumbing, refrigeration, electricity, and antibiotics. Anyone who has looked at the long term graphs knows that deaths due to measles for example were almost non existent before the vaccine came out due to other scientific advances. Of course these graphs do not measure other outcomes like brain damage from high fever or sterility which a vaccine can significantly reduce.
So should a person trust the scientific consensus? Like he said, if you don't know anything about the subject, that is your best bet. However if someone is saying something contrary to the accepted science and you don't know anything about it then it may be in your interest to at least listen. | |
|
Please believe in science.
