You wrote:
Quote:
|
So, speaking as the guy who weighed in above with the position that we don't yet know enough to be speaking authoritatively, let me ask -- and I really do mean this as a sincere request, not a dig or cheap shot -- let me ask what expertise you bring to the discussion? I like to know that sort of thing when I'm considering folks comments, you see, and since this is an area where I admit a fairly complete ignorance, I have no personal expertise within which to consider your comments.
|
When debating these kinds of issues, of course professional scientists are going to have more nuanced opinions (even when their position is contrary to accepted wisdom).
We have to understand the role that scientists should play in a political debate. Yes, their opinions weigh more, but we should not cede too much authority to their pronouncements simply because they have a Phd (my debate coach said that it's easy to find a fool with a PhD who was willing say any damn thing you please).
Politics, by definition, is the art of discussing/debating specialized issues by nonspecialists. On the other hand, an educated nonscientist can read both sides of the argument with a reasonable understanding of which kinds of evidence are credible and which kinds are not. For more on the proper/improper use of science in political debate, read Chris Mooney's book The Republican War of Science
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php