Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
|
A couple of things..........
1: A poll of a bunch of people who read Scientific American and Nature is of course going to show a high level of trust in what scientists say about certain issues. Just as a poll of people who read Rock magazine in Australia will show a high level of trust in what Dan Osman has to say. Doesn't really say much.
2: Do the readers even have any interest and any knowledge in
all of the issues asked about? I'm making an assumption here but it seems to me that many of those issues would have a wide ranging and conflicting set of views espoused by scientists in those fields. So how could anyone trust what "scientists" say on the issue without first knowing if there is a general consensus and then knowing what that consensus states?
Cheers,
PKFFW