Sadly, DirtyBallast, I think you just demonstrated again that you don’t get it.Wow, amazing, so many thoughts in one post and none of them are correct. I have never seen such an illogical argument and poor understanding of science - EVER!
The point is that there is no correct or acceptable answer to the question “who can say?”. As soon as you give some specific person or group the power to silence opposing views, they are no longer exercising expertise, they are exercising power.
This is the case with science just as much as any other claims.
Science works by challenging existing ideas. Without debate, there is no science. Without science, there are no scientists. Scientists are only experts if and only to the extent that their ideas are subject to challenge and have survived all such challenges. There is no such thing as “the science”. Scientific knowledge is always provisional, always up for debate. As soon as this is not the case, it is no longer science.
A scientist who wants to silence opposing views ceases to be a scientist, and has become an activist and a political player. They are wielding power, not expertise.
Even if you disagree with that, then you have to tell us which scientists get to decide what views are misinformation, and therefore should be silenced?
If your answer is scientific consensus, then who gets to decide what that is, and whether it is achieved? By definition, we are talking about situations where at least someone disagrees. What exactly is a consensus? 90%? 50%? What if the minority turn out to be right? As soon as you stifle debate, you close off the very process that produces scientific progress.
The same goes for just about any other claim or attempt to gain or exercise power or influence.
Who ultimately has the right to decide who we can listen to and what we believe? Each one of us. That is ultimately the only acceptable answer.
Yes. The gullible audience. That is who decides.
Don’t tell us you’re not a scientist, we already know.
I mean really, ‘without debate there is no science’, if you don’t know what science is, that okay, just tell us and we’ll explain it to you, no need to create some weird word salad trying show you know, we can see you do not.
‘Who ultimately has the right to decide who we can listen to and what we believe? Each one of us. That is ultimately the only acceptable answer.’ Wow! I just don’t have anything kind to say to you in regard to this.
So you think that without debate there is no science? Because I know about entropy and can validate physical possibilities in respect to the second law of thermodynamics that because you could come along and tell me that you have built a machine that violates the first law of thermodynamics that this makes you a part of science? You’re going to be making ‘the debate’ and I am going to look at you with distain and probably walk off laughing, absolutely not partaking in anything that vaguely resembles a debate on this.
Debate is not essential to science; science is the very precise opposite of that. It is fundamental and anyone that knows anything about science knows it. Science is science because we have testable, and importantly fallible, hypothesis that are VALIDATED and confirmed by experiment and observation and then PEER REVIEWED, to confirm the results. Validation and peer review are not about debate (unless either are not found, in which case the testable, fallible, hypothesis at the origin is NOT a fact in science), validation and review are about finding concurrence.
There is no rational debate on gravitation, it’s existence or function, do you think this is not science? I am not aware of anyone sanely debating the photoelectric effect - do you think Einstein’s work was not science?
‘Who ultimately has the right to decide who we can listen to and what we believe? Each one of us. That is ultimately the only acceptable answer.’ It’s trivial, the real scientists who validate data and undertake peer review - absolutely obvious if you actually know what science is.
‘The gullible audience. That is who decides.’ - absolutely not, this is actually the most likely route to the beginnings of religion, not science.