h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

I resemble the implication that I'm gullible just because I'm of the opinion that the jury's still out on the passive smoking issue.

Well, let me put it another way. Maybe on either climate change or passive smoking you have the medical or scientific knowledge to come to an informed opinion that is different from the consensus. If so, fair enough - I don't.

I think if you're simply basing yourself on the scientific and medical info that is out there for the general public, and you come to the view that this consensus is wrong based on that - then I find that logic hard to follow, let me put it that way.

sprout

*ahem*

<>

I'd also like to point out that your admission of not having sufficient scientific knowledge makes the 'gullible' comment even more offensive as you clearly have no clue what you're on about (me, I'm very good friends with two biology graduates, two doctors and I devour any scientific research I come across that looks interesting).

On the other hand I know who the Cato Institute are each to their area of expertise... This is what I mean about understanding who you trust.

Even if you do know doctors and what have you and read things yourself, your approach inevitably involves substituting your knowledge for genuine experts in the field. Mine involves looking for where the most likely consensus is, based on what I know about the groups and peoples involved on the various sides.

sprout

But the problem with the consensus is that the studies are often very biased.