The biggest problem with modern science and medicine in my opinion is, that it wants right and wrong. Black and white.
Agreed.
I think that as we accrue knowledge and "advancements," we tend to start to suffer in our ability to deal with uncertainty and the unknown.
It's sad, because there's so much wonder out there, so much that we don't know.
One of the things that the pandemic demonstrated to me was just how little we as a society is able to tolerate uncertainty. We want things to be this or that, we crave certainty - we insist on it. We've lost the flexibility to be able to not judge a person who is honestly saying "I don't know."
Sure, but the point of my original statement was that scientists inject their importantness and "Expertise" on every other field, related or not. A roofer doesn't go on the TV and proselytize about string theory or wealth inequity. Tenured physics professors go on TV and proselytize about climate change though even when their field of expertise is string theory.
This, I do agree with.
I think it's harder for the roofer to get on TV....well, unless he's done a heck of a poor (or some crazy awesome) job.
You bring up a very good point: we as consumers of media need to understand better the difference between expert opinions that really matter, versus opinions given by someone who is an expert at something - and that "something" may not even carry any relevance.
In going back to "science," the thing that folks should realize is that the media and our politicians have weaponized the word and concept for their own gains, be it for power/influence or for financial gain. There's differences between taking an excerpt from a published, peer-reviewed paper versus off of a pre-print server whose existence is to help authors flush out problems with their line of thinking before the paper is even submitted to a journal for review. There's a difference in a paper that's been published by one journal versus another - the quality of the journal, for example. There's even the academic and professional standing of that scientist or group of scientists - and here, we also need to realize that the suggestion that thoughts are "fringe" or "does not align with current understanding" doesn't mean that it is without merit, for all that science can ever do is to prove itself wrong, and that we should humbly remember that many groundbreaking advances originated with a "that can't be."
I know that these aren't necessarily easy concepts to understand, so I'll put this in "gun terms," since we're all in this community.
Robert Vogel favors dry-fire and openly says that he puts in twice as many dry-fire presses as he live-fires at a match, specifically, he says, to eliminate any bad habits he may have picked up under the stresses of world-class level competition. Ken Hackathorn, on the other hand, suggests that dry-fire practice is most beneficial to beginner shooters - and that as shooters advance, it becomes less so.
Travis Haley suggests that airsoft cross-training can be very beneficial for shooters. Vogel sees no possible advantage that airsoft can offer.
John "Chappy" Chapman and Varg Freeborn favor a "fighting stance" even when shooting firearms. John "Shrek" McPhee favors a more balanced "athletic" stance, instead.
Are any of these individuals -undeniably experts in this industry/hobby- any more or less wrong/right than the other?
Just because there's "expert advice" on the table doesn't mean that we should all consume such advice thoughtlessly. As
@Bassbob , myself, and others have noted, take care to actually look and see who's doing the talking. Just because an advice comes from "experts" doesn't make it good - or bad - in and of itself.
