Public radio host asked my opinion on "climate change." Outraged when I said, "I don't have one. Not physicist & climatology's complicated."https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/922177245350805505 …
-
-
Fair enough. I think, on climate change, one by now has to strain to avoid absorbing necessary evidence to abandon notion it's just 50-50.
-
I think it's always wise to refer to a scientific consensus when one exists.
-
I will say I don't understand the Big Bang well enough to argue about it if asked to do so. This doesn't imply there's no consensus.
-
Yes. I suppose there's an important difference btwn issues that do & don't have massive long-term implications for human (& other) welfare.
-
Not in this sense. I'm purely talking about being honest about not having the information necessary to give an informed opinion.
-
It doesn't become OK to pretend you do if the topic is something of importance to human wellbeing. Just be honest about your limitations.
-
Sure. What I meant was that, when there is an issue that has such profound implications for us all, I think some kind of duty kicks in ...
-
... for thinking people, not to become experts, but at least to have looked into nature and preponderance of evidence.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
And, most importantly, feeling able to say, 'I don't know enough about this to comment' rather than feeling obliged to take a side.
-
Yes, on many issues (especially densely quantitative ones), I'd concur.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.