newtype_alpha wrote:
Edit_XYZ wrote:
Your post is straw-man
|
No, it's a thought experiment. The point is information source: is a scientific claim automatically more credible just because it is being made by a scientist? By extension: is expertise in ANY field equivalent to expertise in ALL fields? |
It was a straw-man "thought experiment" (due to it reflecting reality so inaccurately, biasedly).
And the point I specifically made - and which you tried to combat by straw-man - is that any person/scientist/etc can use his/her credibility as he/she sees fit.
|
And I noticed that your arguments in refuting scientists' predictions...
|
Have I refuted anyone's PREDICTIONS in this thread? You may need to refresh my memory.
|
You most definitely tried to undermine predictions/ideas/etc (just in case you want to go another round of semantic hair-splitting) by attacking the scientists expressing them - P Davies, for example.
Instead of attacking the arguments they made, that is.