Cmon we've been joking with exactly this picture for years now on the internet. The other really popular joke one is the pancake that, specially in B&W, looks like a moon!
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/pancake-that-resemb...
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/pancake-that-resemb...
You can make these jokes in your peer group but outsiders of these group may feel degraded.
On the contrary, I've spent the last 2 years watching "experts" in my own field make absolute fools of themselves, to the point where a number of formerly respected leaders in science and medicine have lost all credibility. The kind of "expert" that would mindlessly re-tweet an obvious picture of a salami as a scientific discovery is giving you prima facie evidence that you should have some level of doubt concerning their judgment.
The general public needs to be more informed of the following two facts:
* Appeals to authority, no matter how credentialed, are not arguments. Always start from the assumption that the "expert" is wrong until you can prove otherwise. If you aren't capable of evaluating the evidence for yourself, don't repeat it.
* You don't know what you don't hear. Even if you have heard from a true "expert", the media will regularly distort or cherry-pick their sources to make whatever sensational claim that drives clicks. So-called "experts" are often pulled from a list of twitter users that are tweeting in support of a reporter's desired headline just prior to deadline, and all other experts' opinions are ignored.
I'll add a bonus:
* Celebrity is a hell of a drug. Even the most credible speaker faces an almost irresistible force to dress up factual claims with opinions. Particularly if they're personally scared / emotional, on one of those horrid cable news panels, or both.
Bottom line: if you don't have training in a discipline, you aren't qualified to judge a claim within it. Treat the whole thing as no different than a television program about celebrity gossip, because that is what it is to you. Don't just blindly trust a quote or a talking head simply because some writer/producer at a news agency told you to trust them.
And that's the bottom line.
In the end you don't get a better informed and critical audience, you get people who don't believe you if you say 1+1 is 2.
We live in times where people discuss if earth is flat and rules by lizard people fro the inside of the earth.
If you always start from the assumption that the expert is wrong, you have no time to do anything because the world now has so much knowdledge you can't check it evrything fast enough.
And some point you have to trust people and that some are experts.
I haven't asked you to "believe me".
What you're saying is that you'd rather believe "experts" than not believe them. This is religion, not rationality.
> you have no time to do anything because the world now has so much knowdledge you can't check it evrything fast enough. And some point you have to trust people and that some are experts.
...or you can choose to stay agnostic on most claims, and simply do your best to contributing to the noise of the world based on hearsay and your own uninformed opinions.
Here's the big question. How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct? What I'm getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you is your sensory data. This sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulate your brain.
In other words, all that you really know about the outside world is relayed to you through your electrical connections.
That would mean that...you really don't know what the outside universe is really like at all for certain.
Hmm, exactly this picture and the website's stats don't quite line up! ;P
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/pancake-moon--7803900602743385...
But either works, as long as it's a pancake that looks a bit like the moon.