This time I'm sure the consensus/"the science" has got it right though.
Because there are examples of the medical community getting it wrong (btw they did not get it wrong when it came to opiates - everyone knew opiates were addictive) doesn't mean they are always wrong.
Also there is no way for you to figure out who the quacks are (of course they exist, there are MDs suggesting insane things all the time) and who the correct but contrarians are.
So, by default you assume if the opinion is not mainstream it must have validity.
Now, I'm not saying the opposite is true. I'm saying it is just as bad (or maybe even worse statistically) to form an opinion because it isn't mainstream as it is to form an opinion just because it IS mainstream.
You're not a critical thinker because you dismiss the mainstream because it is mainstream. Just the opposite.
What is happening especially now is precisely that, this whole 'misinformation' drive is to encourage the dismissal of critical opinion (on more and more topics it seems). This is a bad road to go down.
And you make a good example of the overall point: there should not be this 'mainstream' vs 'not-mainstream' and we just pick a side. We should all be mature enough not to fall for that silly manipulation and instead try to fully inform ourselves from a range of sources and challenge ourselves.
I think the reality is that because there are holes in the response to covid, people dismiss the whole.
Also, there's no real way for us to know what would have happened if we did nothing. Maybe another 1-2m dead - or maybe we'd be just where we are today.
> I think the reality is that because there are holes in the response to covid, people dismiss the whole
I think a more salient point is perhaps that because so much effort was put into covering the 'holes' (not to mention the coining and dissemination of the label 'misinformation') rather than be honest about them, distrust was created. It is sensible to question when any groups make concerted efforts to dismiss and censor alternative views, regardless of the merits. Evidence and transparency on the side of the reason/truth should not need such measures.
The authorities and press infantalised the population on the assumption people are too stupid to process information and make their own informed choices. This is bad precedent.
This recent trend of treating science as an unquestionable reminds me much more of religion than of science. At this point in the covid game where quite a bit of the accepted science has changed, it seems that only people's egos are keeping them from seeing this.
Point is we also have a long history of genuine quacks and loonies, and they outnumber the genuine Cassandras to such an extent as to invalidate your heuristic. Statistically, if someone disagrees with the mainstream scientific consensus, they aren't a brave voice fighting the tide of darkness - just wrong.
Why would you mention only one list and not the other?
Why would you want to enlist as a soldier in one side of a cause where neither side is reliable, neither side has your best interests in mind?
You're playing yourself for a fool.
People gotta stop with this whole "you're either with the science or against it" rubbish. Be adults, inform yourself and make decisions. Don't just let media, politicians or fringe dwellers define your 'label' for you.
Complex issues need complex thought, but it's easy to just fall for paternalism and externalise your responsibility.
You're playing yourself the fool by thinking this is just a game of being on the winning team.
In this topic, it's clearly relevant that this is far from universally the case. The establishment is often correct as well. That's why you don't want to cherry pick all your experts from one side. Especially if you yourself lack the ability to tell which experts are more expert, which is definitely true in Rogan's case.
As in my other responses, I agree and my view is not to just dismiss a view just because of which 'side' it is on.
We must keep reprosecuting the evidence, data and opinions over time to try to maintain objectivity while avoiding being swayed by manipulation, fraud and/or populist consensus.
Yes, there is inertia in the scientific community, and sometimes the dissenting voices have a hard time being heard. That much is true.
But that is true because most of the time, the dissenting voices are wrong, if not outright lunatics.
The 'misinformation' label has made it really easy to just ignore a range of views through not wanting to be in 'that group.'
> But that is true because most of the time, the dissenting voices are wrong, if not outright lunatics
That's an incredibly broad generalisation, you're going to have to back that up with evidence. Does that also include those over-enthusiastically pushing the 'right' science that is in fact later proved wrong? Or are they not lunatics, just 'the science changed' on them?
Neither would some that disagreed were quasks so all who disagree with the mainstream are quacks, which is how they are treated.