A mistake I see smart people make all the time: Presenting one scientist's take on a contested topic, and saying "See, scientists think X"
One scientist's "take" could be very convincing. The _Origin of Species_ for example. It's not one scientist, one vote.
-
-
Yes but representing is as "scientists think" is misleading. Also Darwin became convincing to the public after certain % of experts agreed
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Point is, it should be about the argument or data, not the scientist
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Doesn't help that since childhood we're taught about individuals who saw something nobody else did (Galileo w heliocentism, Newton w grav.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Science is not a democracy but scientific consensus still has value.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Sure, but if some respectable scientists disagreed w/Darwin, it'd still be misleading to present Darwin's thesis as "what scientists think"
-
(there's a grey area of "respectable" scientific disagreement, but many examples of this mistake fall well outside the grey area)
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah, but it's Darwin plus mountains of corroborating evidence that makes it convincing.
-
Also, a lot of Darwin's original work has been superseded by more advanced research.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's all scientists, zero votes. The work stands for itself; using any number of scientists as a crutch for discourse is dangerous.
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.