"Limbaugh counters by saying, "If that was the case why are most of the people in the nearby city still born with 10 fingers. Clearly those at CalTech at lying."
See. you're biased. You are talking about the left and the right. Not anti-intellectualism (which described above is actually anti-elitism). The left will never admit Rush is correct, even when he as scientific proof/facts to back it up.
"It's about people who have consistently shown that they know more than you do about a specific topic. Of course if you must prove using standard levels of scientific proof everything all over again then I'd love to see your lab where you've done this work. It must be huge."
You need to look at who is funding the study/research/scientist to really give you an idea if you can really believe it without further research.
Global warming is a good example of this. There is so much government money wrapped up in it (billions of dollars), I seriously doubt we will never know if it's truly man-caused or not (why would anyone go against it when their funding/tax dollars in many European countries gets cut).
A friend of mine has his phd in epidemiology. She really opened my eyes up to the biased nature of research studies.
> You need to look at who is funding the study/research/scientist to really give you an idea if you can really believe it without further research.
No. The beauty of science is that it doesn't matter who funds it. So long as they're releasing all the papers[1] and the data[2] you can check the results yourself.
[1] unethical scientists will do many studies and only release the ones that confirm the results they want to find.
[2] often data is hidden somewhere and not available.
See. you're biased. You are talking about the left and the right. Not anti-intellectualism (which described above is actually anti-elitism). The left will never admit Rush is correct, even when he as scientific proof/facts to back it up.
"It's about people who have consistently shown that they know more than you do about a specific topic. Of course if you must prove using standard levels of scientific proof everything all over again then I'd love to see your lab where you've done this work. It must be huge."
You need to look at who is funding the study/research/scientist to really give you an idea if you can really believe it without further research.
Global warming is a good example of this. There is so much government money wrapped up in it (billions of dollars), I seriously doubt we will never know if it's truly man-caused or not (why would anyone go against it when their funding/tax dollars in many European countries gets cut).
A friend of mine has his phd in epidemiology. She really opened my eyes up to the biased nature of research studies.
reply