Robert Maxwell wrote:
The problem is trading on one's credibility and reputation to make a prediction they aren't actually qualified to make.
It's his/her credibility and reputation to trade.
As for the predictions - their value depends on the arguments on which they are built, not on the titles (and the domains corresponding to these titles) the predictors have.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and call bullshit on this one.
You know and I know that if Stephen Hawking announced with a straight face that the next phase of human evolution is likely to involve the genetic engineering of a race of enormous amazonian women
, ALOT more people would take him seriously than they would if that prediction was being made by a pizza delivery guy from New York, even if the delivery guy used the exact same arguments and the exact same research.
Famous observation: "Back where I come from, we have universities -- seats of great learning -- where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep, deep thoughts -- and with no more brains than you have. But they have one thing you haven't got: a diploma
You call bullshit a lot - based on nothing.
Your post is straw-man because:
Did "Stephen Hawking announced with a straight face that the next phase of human evolution is likely to involve the genetic engineering of a race of enormous amazonian women
If yes - let's see the proof. If such a prediction exists (
) and is supported by no arguments, Stephen Hawking just wasted his credibility and reputation - which are his to waste, NOT yours to dictate about.
If not - your post is a straw-man.
And I noticed that your arguments in refuting scientists' predictions are ad personams or other superficialities, NOT anything relating to the actual arguments.
Not very convincing - quite the opposite, newtype_alpha.