And so he fell, from science to pseudoscience.
Yes, a good scientist is dogged. But take that admirable trait a couple of steps too far, and it can take you to a bad place and bad company.
TBH, I too shared a similar view with Simon at the start of the pandemic. When I heard most people recover from the virus, I was like, phew! the chances of me getting the virus and falling seriously ill was low. However, as time progressed and the pandemic raged, it became quite obvious the virus was more dangerous than I thought. How a trained epidemiologist couldn’t see the same thing is sure baffling. He probably caught a variant of the “Nobel disease”.
Scientists, when driven to it by ego, can be very effective pseudoscientists.
See the clues here:
Baker goes to evidence:
“…“almost scandalous” and “patently absurd”; a piece both poorly argued and reliant on cherry-picked evidence.”
Thornley, instead, ignores evidence and uses pseudoscientific rhetoric:
“They’re trying to shut down alternative views which have already been proven correct.”
I’m interested in whether @thoughtful can see these differences when (I think) she agrees with the scientist in this argument…
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.