When someone says "Trust the experts" they are essentially anti-science. The scientific process is all about challenging, probing and testing conclusions for failures and reasoning, process, measurements. Plus, the experts NEVER 100% agree. Even on topics of broad consensus, there is a minority opinion that can be very well held and is often right. History is replete with expert consensus that is ultimately overturned by a minority opinion that gains evidence and acceptance.

So no, do not "trust" the experts. That is a way of shutting down dissent and stifling the path of scientific progress.

Ideally, government policy is based on a consensus of scientific research. Scientific rigor means that research projects are repeated several times, independently, and the results published in peer-reviewed journals. If the results are replicated enough, most scientists in the field agree that they're valid. This consensus isn't the last word. It's always open for reconsideration. But policies have to be made, so ideally they're made based on the best available consensus.

For example, there is consensus that vaccines prevent disease and don't have significant side effects. Most scientists in the field agree with this because it's been studied over and over and over with the same results. And believe me, every scientist would love to make a name for themselves by disproving a prevailing belief, so they've looked! Competition keeps things rigorous.

RFK, Jr. does none of this. He's not basing his policies on scientific consensus. He appears to be basing his decisions on crackpot theories, internet myths promoted by trolls, and very possibly personal gain. Some people think they will benefit from destroying the U.S. biomedical infrastructure. Those people have either paid or fooled RFK, Jr.

Many of the “experts” are in the pocket or on the payroll of industries. Unless you are prepared to read actual studies and evaluate for yourself the validity of the scientific evidence presented, the type of controls used, the size of the cohorts included, and any supporting studies - then don’t just trust all random so-called experts. Some are more interested in their grants, prestige and positions in academia than actual science.

Can you substantiate that statement (of fact?) please? How many- percentage wise? What is your documentation?

I thought as much. You can’t make your point with exaggeration of a generalization.

If you catch a scientist saying, "Oh, I just trust the experts," that's a problem.

But for lay people to say, "Yeah, it's peer reviewed and supported by a broad consensus, but I know better," has nothing at all to do with science. You honestly think that, for instance, "the path of scientific progress" has been stifled because a bunch of bozos think they know something about vaccines?

Science is adversarial, by nature. The know-nothings who claim that scientists march in blind lockstep simply haven't been around scientists, whose greatest delight is proving the consensus wrong. But they have to actually do it, rather than just holding a contrarian opinion.

As for your belief that minority opinion is often right, I think you'd have to give me a little more than your say-so on that. The fact that it's so remarkable when the "minority opinion" (an odd choice of words when discussing science) is right rather calls that statement into question. I suspect you could marshal a handful of instances where the minority opinion was right (Galileo, for starters, doesn't really count, since he wasn't challenging science). But the idea that the minority position on a scientific proposition is as likely to be correct as the position supported by research, peer review, and consensus is, with all due respect, mistaken.

"scientific process is all about challenging, probing and testing conclusions for failures and reasoning, process, measurements"

Scientific process is NOT all about continuous challenging and rechecking prior conclusions. Maybe that's so in English Lit.
We would never get anywhere in science if that were so. Perhaps it's ok in English Lit because Hemingway isn't turning out anything new.

There is ample debate and plenty of literature about scientific method, but what is certain about it is that it is based on observation, explanation, and expansion. Where you are correct is that explanation is expected to be rigorous and subject to future re-evaluation - because of the expansion. Not just because we don't like the explanation!

Rational people believe an "expert" demonstrates superior knowledge in his/her chosen field. Such "expertise," particularly in the area of science and medicine, is achieved only through years of study, formal education and degrees, extensive supervised training in one's field, and recognition by one's peers. Stupid people believe an "expert" is someone who tells them what they want to hear, and reinforces their superstitions.

As an example, consider "Dr." Peter McCullough, who completely went off the deep-end sometime during the pandemic, but still retains many of his credentials.

Look at his first Wikipedia page, where he has the appearance of a normal "expert", with the current page which correctly recognizes his propensity for misinformation and pseudo-science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_A._McCullough&oldid=1034756544

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough

The American College of Cardiology even granted him the Simon Dack award. Does that invalidate ACC as an institution? Simon Dack as well? The process of discrediting a former expert is complex and it involves examining the legitimacy of all their expert connections, as further invalidations may be necessary.

In a strong Democracy, the establishment of expert credibility seems to occur at the intersection of the expert field with expert journalism. Our expert journalists examine the field expert credentials and help us determine which ones we should discard (McCullough, Malone, Stella Emmanuel, etc.) and which experts we should embrace (Fauci, Gates, Hotez, Gupta, etc.).

The peer-review process subjects an "expert's" scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field (peers) and is considered necessary to ensure academic scientific quality.

"Trust the experts" is literally the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

"Don't trust the experts" is actually an appeal to authority. People like Donnie and rjk jr., saying trust us, we know better than the so-called experts.

Pro-science people aren't saying we should blindly follow scientists, that's a straw man they set up so they can pretend that the well-researched results of vast experiments and extensive observations are really just a few nerds saying something any resting on the authority of their lab coats.

Last edited Tue Aug 12, 2025, 08:23 AM - Edit history (1)

😒

Who pulled his chain to cut the funding? There has to be someone else involved. Cui bono?

that rake in billions of dollars each year in search for the 'elusive' cures. Of course, they have CEO's that make seven figure salaries and are so fucking important to the status quo. If the science ultimately begins to churn out cure after cure, then what are the charitable entities to do?

Experts are scientists and to be respected and trusted with their advice.

RFK jr is ruining American science and will get people killed.

Having dealt with a few 'experts' in my time, I can say that it is easy to declare oneself an 'expert' in anything, as long as others agree with you. In one case, we had a situation at my workplace where the janitorial staff wanted to install a camera in the teacher's lounge because the teachers were worse than the kids when it came to cleaning up after themselves. The janitorial staff were tired of it (They had just re-modled the room), and wanted empirical evidence of who it was so that some real action could be taken. A firestorm erupted almost immediately. There were two staffers who started to pass out stuff they had gotten from a 'surveillance expert' that was very militant about how such things were wrong and illegal and all this other stuff. The janitor came to me and asked about the information on the papers. I decided to do some research on the 'expert on surveillance'. This person touted all kinds of things as to her qualifications of being an expert. I decided to start really digging. That was when I discovered that the 'expert on surveillance' was just an English Major from my old stomping grounds (N.C.). There was absolutely nothing that I could find anywhere that showed her 'expertise' in this matter. Basically, she was just a disgruntled person who decided she did not like such a thing and then created an online persona of an 'expert'. (She would do things like cherry-pick cases that the defendant won and use them to denounce any and all camera surveillance on the planet. Some of her claims were not even true.) So, I decided to check on the situation, i.e.: the legalities of putting a camera in that room to observe what was going on. I looked at court case dockets, not fifth person stories about the cases. In every legal case of the same parameters, the courts always decided for the organization putting up the camera. One judge said it was no different than if the company had assigned a person to stand there and watch the room. Plus, the camera was not allowed to have audio, even. The 'room supervisor' would have been listening as well as watching, and it was all completely legal for the company to do this. Time and time again, as I checked out what she said vs what the courts said, this 'expert' was proven to be wrong.

Now, yes, this person was not an actual 'expert' on anything, excepting maybe English and running a website (She had convinced many people that she was someone who had intimate knowledge of surveillance, both covert and security. In fact, she was just a person who did not like something and used the internet to have a platform to yell about it.)

The experts we keep referring to, however, are actually experts. They are scientists, they are doctors, they are developers. They have the knowledge and experience to be seen as an 'expert'. However, the term has been pretty well corrupted these days. We need to start referring to them by their titles. This will help create the proper aura for their addressing what is going on. We should not indicate that information came from an 'expert', we should be saying that it came from 'DR. So And So, leading researcher at the National Weather Insititute'.

The rethugs are always trotting out 'experts'. We need to trot out Scientists, Doctors, and so on to make sure everyone sees that the positions we hold will stand up to being attacked by 'experts', because the scientist's information is probably going to be way more stable and solid than these so-called 'experts'.

(I say 'probably' because even a few scientists are going the MAGA route and that makes anything they say suspect.)

Any one can pretend to be an expert physician, attorney, etc. I am not talking about criminals
Lying about their credentials.

I have to say, one real way to know which type a person is dealing with is the specific topic they are supposed to be 'expert' in.

Being an expert in Genetics is one thing. Being an expert in 'cloud interpretation' is another.

What’s left ain’t worth shit.

is gone from worms, and the other part is damaged by all the drugs he has used.

... the worm in his brain had a PhD.

As a professional biochemist and industry veteran of the past 32 years, the only charitable interpretation of his word salad nonsense would be that he is confused about how vaccines work and what reactions occur in the body when the immune system is engaged with vaccines. He CLEARLY has no idea what mRNA actually is, how IT works, or what the doses do.

At best he is ill-informed and overly credulous of crack pot ideas.
At worst he IS a crack pot ideologue and actively harmful to millions.

This entire period of time - from 2015 through the present - has been nothing short of a breath-taking dive into insanity. If I had not been living it, there is no way I would believe that so many "leaders" could have uttered such divorced-from-reality horse shit and mainained any positions, let alone leadership roles and decision making powers.

Truly pathetic way for the formerly greatest country ever to go to its knees - grasping for the mushroom shaped tiny prick to servvice a narcissist's ego and sacrifice its own dignity and honor. We all deserve every bit of the future's scorn for allowing this to come to pass.

"Energy"?

This is why lay people do have to trust experts. I trust experts every fucking day.

500 years from now, historians and scholars will still be studying this vile era of American history, slowly shaking their heads, all the while. And we're just letting it happen.

"You can't control the amount of energy that everybody is getting," he said. "When you give a vaccine, you want to know exactly how much energy is because some people react very, very badly and can get very, very badly injured."

even know what that means. The amount of energy everybody is getting? What the hell is worm brain talking about! I think the worms very, very, badly injured his brain and all the drugs he took very, very badly injured his brain!

Test pilot, rock star AND a polymath. Not like Brainworm, who only has a law degree.

Trusting RFK Jr. on anything related to health is a death wish.

can be in charge of our healthcare.

I know I'd buy it.

Also expert Central Park roadkill prankster and expert worm brain.

Just like the illegal takeover of our cities by the military by the piece of shit? the Republican Party could stop it anytime they wanted, they could stop RFK they could stop the illegal take over our cities but they will not do it.

The Republican Party will not protect this country from him they are fascist.

Where are the high profile Republicans speaking out.😡

And RFK's clinical hallucinations are not evidence of anything but his own clownishness.

Old Bob had his own kids vaccinated for Covid. I'm betting he is too.

I will continue to believe the likes of Dr. Fauci over his, "experts."

But trusting idiots is. He should know.
Some people will have reactions to a vaccine. Just like some people have reactions to shellfish, peanut butter, milk, pet dander, and thousands of other foods or pollutants.
But you don't stop people who don't have a reaction from getting vaccinated, eating certain foods, or having pets.
You deal with it intelligently, not like an arrogant, self-serving idiot who just wants to make decisions for people, regardless of what they want or need.
Experts in Science and government officials who adhere to democracy are exactly what we need, now more than ever.
What we've got is a group of arrogant assholes who don't believe in either of those things.

RFK Jr is a blithering idiot.

Academia, traffic control systems, computer science to name a few.

Let's turn over the world to magical thinking.

more attractive to humans than reason. Fantasy is such a big part of human experience, bigger than we realize most of the time. People live for the dream.

Did he mean studies reviewed by 5,000 people? Again, who?
Did he see a post on some 8chan site with 5,000 responses?

I doubt there have been 5,000 studies of the vaccines by actual experts.

Are we sure they got the whole worm out?

we trust morons?

is not intelligent either.