Okay, what about when there is a lack of consensus? When you have scientists who, for example, argue that the virus came from the Wuhan lab whereas the narrative being told is that that’s crazy. This is the problem I have with people in this thread assuming that everyone who isn’t immediately on board is dumb, delusional, conspiratorial, etc. We’re not talking about flat Earth theory here; it’s not that simple.
The problem is only when expertise is unduly dismissed. If there’s no consensus you listen to the differing ideas and you can determine what sounds right to you while acknowledging your lower level of confidence by being extra cautious until there’s more information available.
Sure, people yelling on the internet is annoying and bad, but that’s regardless of the argument they’re pushing. It doesn’t say anything about the quality of the evidence if one side is more annoying.
Okay, what about when there is a lack of consensus? When you have scientists who, for example, argue that the virus came from the Wuhan lab whereas the narrative being told is that that’s crazy. This is the problem I have with people in this thread assuming that everyone who isn’t immediately on board is dumb, delusional, conspiratorial, etc. We’re not talking about flat Earth theory here; it’s not that simple.
The problem is only when expertise is unduly dismissed. If there’s no consensus you listen to the differing ideas and you can determine what sounds right to you while acknowledging your lower level of confidence by being extra cautious until there’s more information available.
Sure, people yelling on the internet is annoying and bad, but that’s regardless of the argument they’re pushing. It doesn’t say anything about the quality of the evidence if one side is more annoying.