I agree with this statement. However, at what point, or what would have to happen for you to cease to trust in these particular third parties. Would there have to be research to contradict the current evidence? Research, so damning that the past decades would be for naught? If so, do you believe such research or evidence would ever see the light of day?

A lot of the loss of trust is due to the lack of accountability and the unwillingness for people/institutions to admit their mistakes publicly and take responsibility. I agree with you that for progress to succeed and for knowledge to be exchanged and for our understanding to flourish we need to seek the advice of experts, but I also understand deeply how the experts have been wrong before. At one point, the experts of North American thought it was best to kill 55 million buffalo and erase a culture.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Calibrating trust takes a lot of discipline, yes. And yes, scientists are wrong all the time. But the point of science is that it's a process of becoming less wrong over time.

Murry me. 🤿 🐳 cc: #[6]. 🫳

💍

Mike said that science is an endless process, like the allegedly ever expanding universe, per scientific research.

Culture, science, politics, and life itself ... all endless processes of constant change. There is no destination.

Agreed. 💯.

🩵! Isn’t that funny? 🛼 Floating on a universe that doesn’t hang. 🫧 Headed nowhere. 🌐 Might as well enjoy the ride. 😼

I guess my question to you is what made you cease to trust the financial experts who said bitcoin was worthless? Or, the environmental experts who say that bitcoin is bad for the environment? What is it about the climate experts that makes you willing to place your trust in them? I’ve also read your points about the fallacy of believing you can predict the future out to 100 years, which I agree without. So how does your beliefs on that subject align with climate modelling that seeks to do just that?