Jed, if all three gave you the same useless recommendation and you disagreed and did something else that worked. I would say you had a better understanding than the experts. I am not very good at medicine. However, I often knows better about my body than the doctor. Sometimes they are just plain wrong.
I think the answer to vaccination is less than clear. California has mandated vaccination and that might be more good than bad. The problem is that we now make vaccine for illnesses that are less severe and like any alteration in the body vaccination has risks. It is a danger that the benefits do not outweigh the risks and because of the political mandate any evaluation will become impossible / not required. It is not cut and dry. Instead it is a good example of something the experts has different opinions about and perhaps there is room for many solutions. It also shows you that a society with no competition / debate will eventually end up with stupid and dangerous decisions. California's mandatory vaccination policy fits big pharma and the politicians and it is easy to enforce. Scientists are depending on politicians and big pharma for grants, who is going to critically examine the vaccination policy and new vaccines? You have a clear misunderstanding of how well the majority can determine what is best / correct. That we have a global warming seems undeniable. That we had a global cold spell in the 17 century or so. None of those facts is disputed. Also it is my understanding that most people agree that pollution due to fossil fuel is no good. The connection between global warming and our burning of fossil fuel is not so undisputed. Regardless it will require economical and political *wants* and *determination* to make that shift away from fossil fuel. Many issues are connected with this change and it will take time as there is no determination or real will. LENR might help speed up the process. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > > >> You go to three experts and the one who gives the correct answer is the >> REAL expert. That is the problem in a nutshell - experts are often wrong >> even if they say they are experts and it is hard to see which one is THE >> expert. I assume you did not go to the two first experts even as you know >> they were less of an exper,t than the third one:) >> > > Suppose all three had given me the same advice. I would be a fool to claim > that I know better, wouldn't I? Suppose I were to go several hundred > doctors, and almost every one of them recommended the same treatment? I > would be insane not to believe them. > > To take a real-life medical example, the vast majority of doctors will > tell you it is good idea to vaccinate your children. Only a few dangerous > quack doctors will disagree. You should definitely go with the majority > consensus, because you do not want to see your child die in agony from > tetanus. > > In the case of global warming, nearly every expert agrees. Okay, you will > find a small minority who disagree, but as a non-expert, you should go with > the consensus. > > > Getting back to the actual case of my rash, the second doctor, a GP, said > to me: "Well if it is not getting better, why don't you go see Dr. > So-and-so? He knows a lot about rashes." It is the mark of a true expert > that he knows the limits of his own knowledge. He does not suffer from the > Dunning-Kruger effect. He knows what he does not know. > > - Jed > >
