Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2021 14:05:18 GMT
I don't think anyone is questioning the expertise of scientists. Motivations perhaps
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Dec 11, 2021 14:09:20 GMT
Timothy Evans was hanged on the basis of "evidence". In many cases "evidence" means that one side of an argument is given greater weight than the other due to perceived differences in status between the opposing parties. You seem to think the opinions of Whitty, Vallance etc should be given the utmost respect due to their educational qualifications while ignoring the fact that they may well have personal vested interests in holding the positions they do. We could say the same if you claimed to be an expert in driving big trucks aka sitting on arse all day. You had to put some effort in to get qualified, nowhere near as much as those scientists did. You would object if they told you the best way to sit on your arse, you know that, being an expert, having segs to prove it. Yet you can question their expertise cos it inconveniences you. FFS! The simple fact is that a virologist will only look at the situation from his professional viewpoint. An economist would look at the same situation and see something entirely different, and as I stated before the economy is not some thing that operates in isolation and has no bearing on public health. When it comes to Whitty, Vallance et al it would be wise to remember the words of Upton Sinclair "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it".
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 11, 2021 14:23:33 GMT
I don't think anyone is questioning the expertise of scientists. Motivations perhaps Shirley, scientists are motivated by truth, tory politicians by expediency and lust for power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2021 15:34:41 GMT
Have the predictions by the scientists ever been subjected to scrutiny?
I mean there were some pretty dire predictions with the "modeling" which were completely inaccurate.
It's a dodgy situation which is again turning up as a major influence for .gov policy.
Surely at some point this all needs to be investigated properly. Otherwise it's too easy for people to scam it.
I don't for a minute think it is a hoax but you have to have checks and balances otherwise the whole thing goes wrong really quickly.
ETA what makes you think scientists are motivated by truth?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 11, 2021 15:54:49 GMT
Have the predictions by the scientists ever been subjected to scrutiny? I mean there were some pretty dire predictions with the "modeling" which were completely inaccurate. It's a dodgy situation which is again turning up as a major influence for .gov policy. Surely at some point this all needs to be investigated properly. Otherwise it's too easy for people to scam it. I don't for a minute think it is a hoax but you have to have checks and balances otherwise the whole thing goes wrong really quickly. ETA what makes you think scientists are motivated by truth? That's the general idea of science.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2021 16:13:03 GMT
No it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 11, 2021 16:24:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 11, 2021 17:22:56 GMT
But you are a lorry driver ... and I mean no disrespect in stating that. I am happier to heed the advice of Witty, Valance and Van Tam ... who knows what history will show, but "we don't know what we don't know" at present and their advice is apparently based on the best current medical evidence. Experts said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This lorry driver said they didn't. Your point? Incorrect... ..... politicians said there were weapons of mass destruction and that they had evidence but they couldn't show it publicly because informants would be killed.
Experts didn't lie .... if you care to remember one of them died under somewhat ....... unusual ..... circumstances
Politicians lie ........ in general experts don't , although that doesn't mean they are infallible by any means
|
|
|
Post by kris on Dec 11, 2021 18:21:23 GMT
Paid “experts,”lie all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Dec 11, 2021 18:29:50 GMT
Experts said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This lorry driver said they didn't. Your point?
Politicians lie ........ in general experts don't
"Expert witness" Professor Sir Roy Meadow?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2021 18:38:35 GMT
Experts said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This lorry driver said they didn't. Your point?
Experts didn't lie .... hmmm, I think we know some do and did.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Dec 11, 2021 18:59:43 GMT
Have the predictions by the scientists ever been subjected to scrutiny? I mean there were some pretty dire predictions with the "modeling" which were completely inaccurate. It's a dodgy situation which is again turning up as a major influence for .gov policy. Surely at some point this all needs to be investigated properly. Otherwise it's too easy for people to scam it. I don't for a minute think it is a hoax but you have to have checks and balances otherwise the whole thing goes wrong really quickly. ETA what makes you think scientists are motivated by truth? That's the general idea of science. Science which is hostile to or cannot withstand scrutiny is called pseudoscience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2021 19:24:12 GMT
They know where you live !
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Dec 11, 2021 23:16:42 GMT
Wikipedia says about Chris Whitty...
"Personal life
Whitty is described by those familiar with him as a private person. He is single and has no children".
Well, I'm sorry but when you have this level of control over millions of citizens and their families then you cannot be a "private person". Your personality needs to be analysed in order to understand your motivations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 8:24:50 GMT
Wikipedia says about Chris Whitty... "Personal life
Whitty is described by those familiar with him as a private person. He is single and has no children". Well, I'm sorry but when you have this level of control over millions of citizens and their families then you cannot be a "private person". Your personality needs to be analysed in order to understand your motivations. Exactly. People in public office have to declare their interests. To be fair I don't think BJ has to declare how many Pfizer shares (if any) he owns but elected representatives do have to declare property ownership and business interests. Surely people forming policy who are not elected must do the same. Otherwise it's just far too dodgy. These people are wide open to conflicts of interest which should not be acceptable given how much influence they have.
|
|