IF 1. Most experts publicly reject empirical claim p. & 2. Defending p is associated with being attacked on ideological grounds, having one's motives questioned and being ostracized by colleagues. THEN: 3. A layperson has a reason not to trust the consensus among experts about p.
-
So lay people have a reason to question Vaccines Helocentrism Climate change Evolution Round earth HIV causes aids?
These meta arguments are complicated.https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9KvefburLia7ptEE3/the-correct-contrarian-cluster …
-
-
If it's complicated the conditional that was retweeted isn't true then right?
-
It's correct but weak evidence.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Nothing says complicated like LessWrong.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.